I believe if you go read MS's FAQ on the ReadyBoost feature they state that today's flash drives should be good for 10 years or so for this duty. I guess in part because flash drives already randomize write locations to spread out the duty, and because MS uses some algorithm to ensure the cache is used for frequent pagefile contents.
actually, it doesn't matter if you just rip out the USB drive at any random time. It is only a cache. Nothing in it is unique to it. Everything on it is already on your disk. Yanking the drive at any time is just fine and dandy, as is plugging it back in again at any random time. It happily begins using it for cache duty just as before, until you tell it you don't want it to do so.
a recent typical USB thumbdrive is something like 10x faster at random access of 4KB chunks than even the fastest hard drives. So Vista can use one of these USB drives as a cache for the pagefile, speeding up a system quite a bit *IF* it is using the pagefile quite a bit. That is, if you're a bit low on RAM and the pagefile is getting hit pretty hard. Pop in a USB stick and allow it to use a portion for this feature and you should get a pretty decent boost. If, however, you already have tons of RAM you aren't likely to see as big of a gain. On my 2GB machine I can't tell the difference with a stick in or not. If it only had 1GB, or god forbid 512MB or less, perhaps this feature would be more noticable.
Vista does this in its default sleep mode. Sleeps to RAM and to the hibernate file, so it's on fast if it hasn't lost power, and on somewhat slower if it has.
It's an, uh, you know, article about, you know, Vista. And you know, it talks about the, you know, network stack. And you know, about Win2000's stack and, you know, where it may have come from, and, you know, about supposed problems in Vista's, you know, stack. And you know, those guys sure say 'you know' an awful, you know, lot.
I've been using L7-Filter, on my Linksys router of all things, for a couple years now and it performs very nicely. Can have gnutella/G2/ED2K/BitTorrent transfers happening and still get 20ms pings in Counter-Strike with a game as smooth as it would be without any of the P2P stuff going on. It is absolutely great.
I never said anything about you. I was talking about things in general. I'm no fanboy, of any company. When something's better, it's better, period. I stuck with Intel for years and years, until AMD finally bested them. And now I've stuck with AMD for a few years. Not sure what my next purchase will be, AMD or Intel, because they're kind of see-sawing right now. Intel's better today, but I don't know if that will hold true by the time I upgrade again. We'll see. Same goes for NVIDIA and ATI. Couldn't care less who makes it. As long as it works as intended, and is fast. Last purchase was NVIDIA, but this was quite a while ago. Almost bought an ATI somewhat recently, but I think it's swinging back to NVIDIA again. And I think you're misunderstanding how AA is being done. It's not simply about pumping 4x the pixels, because that's exactly what 3dfx did. It's *how* you do it that is important. Somehow, even with the technical documents in their hands, I don't think NVIDIA quite gets what the difference is between how they do it and how 3dfx did it, even thought 3dfx explained it to death when they were bringing it out.
I don't think the Voodoo 5 is the best card ever, but the antialiasing it did is still better than everyone else's to this very day. Granted, it was pretty slow, since it rendered each frame literally four times from start to finish without taking any shortcuts. But it looked gorgeous. Even something like an NVIDIA SLI rig today only matches the Voodoo 5's 2x AA mode in some ways, and it shows. The Voodoo 5 and 4x AA still spoils me to this day. Sure, all the cards that have some since then have gone leaps and bounds beyond what it ever did in every other way. But AA still sucks today on the very newest cards in comparison. And unless you've actually played games for any length of time with a Voodoo 5 it is hard to imagine. To this very day there are people that argue that AA isn't very important, and lots of people don't even use it because it doesn't help that much in their opinion. Knowing that they never saw a V5's AA, I can totally understand their opinion. Doesn't matter that cards have been more than fast enough to do V5-style AA for years now, or that NVIDIA even owns the 3dfx IP that contains their AA method, we still get crap AA anyways. All the other advancements, I'd never give up. Cards are so good today, and keep getting better and better. It rocks. But I still wish I could have actual good AA. When you can run a game a 10x a usable framerate, it definitely would not hurt to fully render each frame four times to get good AA. And, no, their multi-sample modes are not quite the same as the V5's method. They're obviously doing something different. Their shortcuts, etc, are giving results far different from what you would see with a V5. Now they introduce features such as transparency AA, which just makes me laugh. OK, you've introduced a solution to a problem that wouldn't even exist in the first place if you were doing AA properly to begin with. Thanks. Next time, just do AA properly from the get-go. No excuse for not doing so. Especially when you bought the good method's technology from the competitor you killed off, hehe.
all my motherboards from the last, oh, four or five years have had windows flash utils. While this most certainly leaves non-windows users out in the cold, it still doesn't tie you to DOS exclusively. Whether or not it is wise to flash from windows is a different discussion. The fact remains, those flash utils exist.
You're using the number of available models as your measuring stick? That makes no sense whatsoever. That's not "the market" in any way, shape, or form. That's the catalog. What sells from the catalog is entirely different from what's in the catalog. The fact that 10.7% of the TVs are 1080 line models doesn't mean they have 10.7% of the market. That's crazy talk. Do you honestly think that as more and more new musicians/groups are signed and release CDs that it means less people are going to be buying Britney Spears? Because now there are more bands to buy CDs from?
Page 32 of the August 2006 issue of Popular Mechanics has a small story about comparing HD-DVD to standard DVD. Their three test subjects said that the picture from the standard (upconverting) DVD player was almost as good as the real HD-DVD player, but cost $420 less. If the picture's almost as good, why would they want to buy the HD-DVD player? Then I read it again and noticed that the test used a 42" plasma screen that was only 720p. Why even bother doing a comparison if you're not going to use a 1080i/p screen? You're just stacking the deck in favour of putting HD-DVD in a poor light. Standard DVD gets you 345,600 pixels. 720p gets you 921,600 pixels, 2 and 2/3 more pixels. A big step up, to be sure. Perhaps at a regular viewing distance it might not look *that* much better, and maybe that's what happened for the test subjects. But at 1080 you get 2,073,600 pixels! A full SIX times as many pixels as standard def. DVD gives you, and still 2.25 times as many pixels as 720p!! Why, oh why on earth would you do a test with a 720p rig?!? It won't tell you anywhere near the whole story. If you want to see how good HD-DVD is capable of being you need to be looking at the entire picture, not one that has been cutback in resolution by more than half. Seeing stuff like this, especially in something like Popular Mechanics, just aggravates me. It is going to make HD-DVD/Blu-ray that much harder to gain acceptance and start driving prices down. And that's bad for everyone.
hmm, well, even if it's only heating it to the same temp/pressure as the boiler, wouldn't the extra potential energy from gravity help it feed into the boiler? Ah well. Seems to me it's still quite a simple matter to heat it slightly more than the boiler's temp.
If that's the case, you simply heat the HE first, and then further downstream you heat the boiler. The HE's small volume of liquid takes some of the energy from the heat source, leaving enough to still boil the liquid in the boiler. HE should then be hotter than the boiler.
and it is dumping the heat into the ambient air. Solar water heater = much higher than ambient air temperature. Much higher than ambient air temperature = ambient air will cool it. Nobody is trying to say this is defying thermodynamics. And it doesn't. It's not even terribly effecient. But it would work, provided you had a suitable liquid in that closed circuit that powers the turbine. Suitable meaning, the solar heat source's temperature is sufficient to boil it, and ambient air temperature is low enough to condense it. I'm guessing a working device/system would be pretty bulky. But, you could indeed build a working device/system.
Link to animation
Page 7 explains how it works. The liquid is heated by an external source, such as solar water heaters on a rooftop, to a temperature much higher than ambient air temp. This heat is transferred to the liquid, which boils and gets pressurized, and goes through the turbine. After which it is condensed in the condensor, which is cooled via ambient-temperature water. Then the second heat exchanger comes into play. This second one is isolated by valves at both ends. Before the condensed liquid is released into the second heat exchanger, the empty HE is cooled by the same ambient-temperature water as the condensor was. Once the HE is roughly the same temp as the condensed liquid, the top valve opens and the condensed liquid enters the HE, and then the valve closes. Now it is isolated by both valves inside the HE. And the HE is then heated by the same solar heater, bringing the liquid up to the same temp and pressure as it is in the boiler. Then the bottom valve is opened, and the liquid moves into the boiler. The valve is then closed. Then the HE is cooled again, so it can receive more condensed liquid. And on and on. The animation, and their more clear explanation, shows the entire operation rather well. Click it, I say! Click it!
it very clearly states in the animation at the company's website that ambient air temp is sufficient to cool it back down. You seem to be forgetting that those big black panels on rooftops that heat water using the sun's solar energy heat the water up to a much higher temperature than the ambient air is. What exactly would be the point of a solar water heater if it only gave you water that was the temperature of the ambient air? Anyway, so, you use that heat source to boil the liquid in the closed circuit. Don't forget, it ain't water. It's some liquid that boils at a pretty low temp. And then you use the ambient air for the heat exchanger to cool the 'steam' in the closed circuit back down, condense, and start all over again.
So, from what I gather the only requirement for this to work is that the boiling point of the liquid in the closed circuit needs to be higher than the ambient air temp, and lower than the temp you can achieve from a device similar to / same as those rooftop solar water heaters. Then you should have no problem boiling or condensing that liquid, since you have the capability of getting the substance up to the boiling temp, and back down below that temp so it condenses again.
Doom 3 engine, actually. I'll bet you ten bucks that Prey's design didn't change much since they started working on it in 1995, and that's why it is so horrible by today's standards. They got an updated engine for it, but it's still basically a 1995 game. And we all know how far we've come since then. Of course you're going to think a 1995 game is kinda bad now.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic concerning Battlefield 2, though. It shipped with tons of bugs, and that fact is going to make people want to get the next Battlefield game when it is released? Why? Because it won't be buggy? Or because it will? The whole comment doesn't make any sense.
Just another reason PC gaming was always better, is better, and will always be better. Sure, you have worry about compatibility, even in the DirectX age, but by and large the 'system' remains the same for a very long time. Not to mention the games are always better here anyway. Last console I owned was the Super Nintendo, and it will always be the last one I ever owned. Consoles are uninteresting to me, and the games are almost always sub-par because of the restrictions the consoles face.
When you put a very thin layer of gold on each side of cellophane, and that you apply electric current to the gold layers, one positive, one negative, the cellophane curved toward the positive side.
Soooo...we can create positive currents now? *sigh* There are so many errors in grammar here, in addition to the errors in theory. Could we get some editors that actually know the language a little better? Day after day of insanely bad summaries.
Slashdot Mirror
figure out how to do what? And what's the tin-foil hat for?
erggggghlglghgallgglhgggl
ed2k://|file|BackupHDDVD.zip|17964|4860e9248663d52 dc47bfc98d61ec6d7|/
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:ZHZI65X7J4NIX7TU7KLDIZXIJA 62SXX7.OBRERVSGGVO4OMWW7JN7BPC2BPDCE2U5NBUVU3Y&xt= urn:ed2khash:4860e9248663d52dc47bfc98d61ec6d7&dn=B ackupHDDVD.zip&xl=17964
I believe if you go read MS's FAQ on the ReadyBoost feature they state that today's flash drives should be good for 10 years or so for this duty. I guess in part because flash drives already randomize write locations to spread out the duty, and because MS uses some algorithm to ensure the cache is used for frequent pagefile contents.
actually, it doesn't matter if you just rip out the USB drive at any random time. It is only a cache. Nothing in it is unique to it. Everything on it is already on your disk. Yanking the drive at any time is just fine and dandy, as is plugging it back in again at any random time. It happily begins using it for cache duty just as before, until you tell it you don't want it to do so.
a recent typical USB thumbdrive is something like 10x faster at random access of 4KB chunks than even the fastest hard drives. So Vista can use one of these USB drives as a cache for the pagefile, speeding up a system quite a bit *IF* it is using the pagefile quite a bit. That is, if you're a bit low on RAM and the pagefile is getting hit pretty hard. Pop in a USB stick and allow it to use a portion for this feature and you should get a pretty decent boost. If, however, you already have tons of RAM you aren't likely to see as big of a gain. On my 2GB machine I can't tell the difference with a stick in or not. If it only had 1GB, or god forbid 512MB or less, perhaps this feature would be more noticable.
Vista does this in its default sleep mode. Sleeps to RAM and to the hibernate file, so it's on fast if it hasn't lost power, and on somewhat slower if it has.
It's an, uh, you know, article about, you know, Vista. And you know, it talks about the, you know, network stack. And you know, about Win2000's stack and, you know, where it may have come from, and, you know, about supposed problems in Vista's, you know, stack. And you know, those guys sure say 'you know' an awful, you know, lot.
I've been using L7-Filter, on my Linksys router of all things, for a couple years now and it performs very nicely. Can have gnutella/G2/ED2K/BitTorrent transfers happening and still get 20ms pings in Counter-Strike with a game as smooth as it would be without any of the P2P stuff going on. It is absolutely great.
so, how can anybody do what you ask? DX10 support won't arrive until they release a patch in the future.
I never said anything about you. I was talking about things in general. I'm no fanboy, of any company. When something's better, it's better, period. I stuck with Intel for years and years, until AMD finally bested them. And now I've stuck with AMD for a few years. Not sure what my next purchase will be, AMD or Intel, because they're kind of see-sawing right now. Intel's better today, but I don't know if that will hold true by the time I upgrade again. We'll see. Same goes for NVIDIA and ATI. Couldn't care less who makes it. As long as it works as intended, and is fast. Last purchase was NVIDIA, but this was quite a while ago. Almost bought an ATI somewhat recently, but I think it's swinging back to NVIDIA again. And I think you're misunderstanding how AA is being done. It's not simply about pumping 4x the pixels, because that's exactly what 3dfx did. It's *how* you do it that is important. Somehow, even with the technical documents in their hands, I don't think NVIDIA quite gets what the difference is between how they do it and how 3dfx did it, even thought 3dfx explained it to death when they were bringing it out.
I don't think the Voodoo 5 is the best card ever, but the antialiasing it did is still better than everyone else's to this very day. Granted, it was pretty slow, since it rendered each frame literally four times from start to finish without taking any shortcuts. But it looked gorgeous. Even something like an NVIDIA SLI rig today only matches the Voodoo 5's 2x AA mode in some ways, and it shows. The Voodoo 5 and 4x AA still spoils me to this day. Sure, all the cards that have some since then have gone leaps and bounds beyond what it ever did in every other way. But AA still sucks today on the very newest cards in comparison. And unless you've actually played games for any length of time with a Voodoo 5 it is hard to imagine. To this very day there are people that argue that AA isn't very important, and lots of people don't even use it because it doesn't help that much in their opinion. Knowing that they never saw a V5's AA, I can totally understand their opinion. Doesn't matter that cards have been more than fast enough to do V5-style AA for years now, or that NVIDIA even owns the 3dfx IP that contains their AA method, we still get crap AA anyways. All the other advancements, I'd never give up. Cards are so good today, and keep getting better and better. It rocks. But I still wish I could have actual good AA. When you can run a game a 10x a usable framerate, it definitely would not hurt to fully render each frame four times to get good AA. And, no, their multi-sample modes are not quite the same as the V5's method. They're obviously doing something different. Their shortcuts, etc, are giving results far different from what you would see with a V5. Now they introduce features such as transparency AA, which just makes me laugh. OK, you've introduced a solution to a problem that wouldn't even exist in the first place if you were doing AA properly to begin with. Thanks. Next time, just do AA properly from the get-go. No excuse for not doing so. Especially when you bought the good method's technology from the competitor you killed off, hehe.
all my motherboards from the last, oh, four or five years have had windows flash utils. While this most certainly leaves non-windows users out in the cold, it still doesn't tie you to DOS exclusively. Whether or not it is wise to flash from windows is a different discussion. The fact remains, those flash utils exist.
You're using the number of available models as your measuring stick? That makes no sense whatsoever. That's not "the market" in any way, shape, or form. That's the catalog. What sells from the catalog is entirely different from what's in the catalog. The fact that 10.7% of the TVs are 1080 line models doesn't mean they have 10.7% of the market. That's crazy talk. Do you honestly think that as more and more new musicians/groups are signed and release CDs that it means less people are going to be buying Britney Spears? Because now there are more bands to buy CDs from?
MS already replied to this report, saying it's BS and 32-bit versions of Vista will be fine.
Page 32 of the August 2006 issue of Popular Mechanics has a small story about comparing HD-DVD to standard DVD. Their three test subjects said that the picture from the standard (upconverting) DVD player was almost as good as the real HD-DVD player, but cost $420 less. If the picture's almost as good, why would they want to buy the HD-DVD player? Then I read it again and noticed that the test used a 42" plasma screen that was only 720p. Why even bother doing a comparison if you're not going to use a 1080i/p screen? You're just stacking the deck in favour of putting HD-DVD in a poor light. Standard DVD gets you 345,600 pixels. 720p gets you 921,600 pixels, 2 and 2/3 more pixels. A big step up, to be sure. Perhaps at a regular viewing distance it might not look *that* much better, and maybe that's what happened for the test subjects. But at 1080 you get 2,073,600 pixels! A full SIX times as many pixels as standard def. DVD gives you, and still 2.25 times as many pixels as 720p!! Why, oh why on earth would you do a test with a 720p rig?!? It won't tell you anywhere near the whole story. If you want to see how good HD-DVD is capable of being you need to be looking at the entire picture, not one that has been cutback in resolution by more than half. Seeing stuff like this, especially in something like Popular Mechanics, just aggravates me. It is going to make HD-DVD/Blu-ray that much harder to gain acceptance and start driving prices down. And that's bad for everyone.
hmm, well, even if it's only heating it to the same temp/pressure as the boiler, wouldn't the extra potential energy from gravity help it feed into the boiler? Ah well. Seems to me it's still quite a simple matter to heat it slightly more than the boiler's temp.
If that's the case, you simply heat the HE first, and then further downstream you heat the boiler. The HE's small volume of liquid takes some of the energy from the heat source, leaving enough to still boil the liquid in the boiler. HE should then be hotter than the boiler.
and it is dumping the heat into the ambient air. Solar water heater = much higher than ambient air temperature. Much higher than ambient air temperature = ambient air will cool it. Nobody is trying to say this is defying thermodynamics. And it doesn't. It's not even terribly effecient. But it would work, provided you had a suitable liquid in that closed circuit that powers the turbine. Suitable meaning, the solar heat source's temperature is sufficient to boil it, and ambient air temperature is low enough to condense it. I'm guessing a working device/system would be pretty bulky. But, you could indeed build a working device/system.
Link to animation Page 7 explains how it works. The liquid is heated by an external source, such as solar water heaters on a rooftop, to a temperature much higher than ambient air temp. This heat is transferred to the liquid, which boils and gets pressurized, and goes through the turbine. After which it is condensed in the condensor, which is cooled via ambient-temperature water. Then the second heat exchanger comes into play. This second one is isolated by valves at both ends. Before the condensed liquid is released into the second heat exchanger, the empty HE is cooled by the same ambient-temperature water as the condensor was. Once the HE is roughly the same temp as the condensed liquid, the top valve opens and the condensed liquid enters the HE, and then the valve closes. Now it is isolated by both valves inside the HE. And the HE is then heated by the same solar heater, bringing the liquid up to the same temp and pressure as it is in the boiler. Then the bottom valve is opened, and the liquid moves into the boiler. The valve is then closed. Then the HE is cooled again, so it can receive more condensed liquid. And on and on. The animation, and their more clear explanation, shows the entire operation rather well. Click it, I say! Click it!
it very clearly states in the animation at the company's website that ambient air temp is sufficient to cool it back down. You seem to be forgetting that those big black panels on rooftops that heat water using the sun's solar energy heat the water up to a much higher temperature than the ambient air is. What exactly would be the point of a solar water heater if it only gave you water that was the temperature of the ambient air? Anyway, so, you use that heat source to boil the liquid in the closed circuit. Don't forget, it ain't water. It's some liquid that boils at a pretty low temp. And then you use the ambient air for the heat exchanger to cool the 'steam' in the closed circuit back down, condense, and start all over again. So, from what I gather the only requirement for this to work is that the boiling point of the liquid in the closed circuit needs to be higher than the ambient air temp, and lower than the temp you can achieve from a device similar to / same as those rooftop solar water heaters. Then you should have no problem boiling or condensing that liquid, since you have the capability of getting the substance up to the boiling temp, and back down below that temp so it condenses again.
Doom 3 engine, actually. I'll bet you ten bucks that Prey's design didn't change much since they started working on it in 1995, and that's why it is so horrible by today's standards. They got an updated engine for it, but it's still basically a 1995 game. And we all know how far we've come since then. Of course you're going to think a 1995 game is kinda bad now.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic concerning Battlefield 2, though. It shipped with tons of bugs, and that fact is going to make people want to get the next Battlefield game when it is released? Why? Because it won't be buggy? Or because it will? The whole comment doesn't make any sense.
Just another reason PC gaming was always better, is better, and will always be better. Sure, you have worry about compatibility, even in the DirectX age, but by and large the 'system' remains the same for a very long time. Not to mention the games are always better here anyway. Last console I owned was the Super Nintendo, and it will always be the last one I ever owned. Consoles are uninteresting to me, and the games are almost always sub-par because of the restrictions the consoles face.
Soooo...we can create positive currents now? *sigh* There are so many errors in grammar here, in addition to the errors in theory. Could we get some editors that actually know the language a little better? Day after day of insanely bad summaries.
uh...wtf man? I thought the first one was a typo, and then every single instance of the word in the rest of it was purposely misspelled. Smarten up.