You're right, it's not unresonable. However, experience has shown that most AMD processors starting with the Barton core Athlon XP have been very overclockable. While some of the 130NM Athlon 64's were only somewhat overclockable, the 90NM chips are extremely overclockable with air cooling. I won't be surprised at all if the majority of overclocks on these new chips are
I really like AMD chips. Not that I have anything against Intel's chips, and Intel isn't a bad company or anything, but the AMD side of things just always seems to be more exciting for the enthusiast, and it's a lot more affordable for the folks like myself that like to keep their machines upgraded on a regular basis.
Sure, you could be great at grammar and sentence structure. You could be an ace at using proper english.
But how would hidden talent and creativity be found? How will the teacher know if his students are actually trying hard to write their papers when all he does is check the thing with a computer program?
It's a really terrible idea and I think it's really cheezy. Ohh, he saved some time. So does that mean he now gets paid less? Does this automation get the students a discount? Yea, right.
If I'm going to put a lot of work into writing an interesting paper about something, I want someone to read it.
Althought I think actually USING the DVD set for normal use when you have broadband kinda defeats the purpose, I can think of a few reasons why it could be a good thing.
A) Archival. Average users will be able to get a working, usable snapshot of Wikipedia, with media.
B) Preservation. If Wikipedia were to shut down, you'd have a copy of it.
C) Faster access. If you have a slow connection, you can still access Wikipedia at fast speeds. This benefit dwindles over time as articles are updated.
D) Offline access. If you're on the road with no net connection, you can still access Wikipedia. This benefit also dwindles over time as articles are updated.
E) Although backed by Google now which helps with the financials, if it brings in some cash to help support itself it's likely to stay around for much longer.
A) The chip is designed to run very cool. Overclocking it makes it hot, but it still runs fine. Just very hot.
B) The chip is designed to be run at higher speeds, and the initial offering is clocked-down. This gives AMD a few steps before more core/retooling work.
C) The cooler that comes with the CPU is very good.
Not evertything has to be done in series. While there's no big movement against MS in the USA right now, it doesn't mean that the government can't do other things, too.
I hear the complaint about software all the time. "WHY Not fix xyz bug, instead of this abc bug?!" They could be doing both at the same time.
"Are they still allowed to go after someone if they are "distributing" the patent infringing material (even if the cost is $0)?"
Yes. You're giving away someone else's work, theoretically (assuming it's not a bogus patent) and preventing them from benefitting from the labor.
If you could do this legally, you'd have the big companies putting the little ones out of business all the time. All they'd have to do is give away the same product, and kill the market.
Next up, someone will tell me that Windows has to load the Internet into RAM, which is why the swap file gets real big, and it causes Windows to load slow when the moon is full.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS XP, NOT SERVER 2000, OR 2003. You don't run XP on servers. Unless you like the 10 connection limit.
Re:AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...
on
CherryOS On Hold
·
· Score: 1
Yea because students have seventy bucks to spend for a desktop update..
AHHHH... If I Recall Correctly...
on
CherryOS On Hold
·
· Score: 3, Funny
IIRC, you said IIRC four times in one paragraph. IIRC that's just too much, if IIRC from school. We don't need to know IIRC, because IIRW, someone will correct me, IIRC how Slashdot works.
It's a touchy situation for both Microsoft and Open Source development.
The only way to write fully interoperable code is to have access to the source code, says the EU. Microsoft counters with a system that allows access to *some* code, and it's very expensive to gain access to it.
This would cut most Open Source projects out because they don't have the bankroll to pay for these fees, and even if they did most of them would be unwilling to pay for Microsoft code they can only look at.
Many commercial firms spend gobs of money on all things most companies spend gobs of money on anyways, and can pay these fees.
On the other hand, Microsoft may also be worried that if they allow access to the source without a high barrier to entry, it could mean lots of Microsoft code floating around the Internet. This is a distinct possibility, considering that you can already get every Microsoft product online.
If Microsoft pulled out of the Market, it would prove they're using their Monopoly status (and that they have one) to pull the Market and Law in their favor.
No, they'll do what they need to do to wiggle out, and sneak back into their old ways as fast as they can, even if it means more lawsuits. They don't care about those things, they just need to keep the Monopoly going on.
I work in a Microsoft shop. We've got 600 servers, all Windows 2000 and 2003. We use the hell out of AD, we have 50 sites, and over 6,000 workstations. It's not a huge company but it's formidable.
Anyways, the bane of any Windows IT person these days is patches. Almost every single Windows patch requires a reboot. Even some of the IE patches.
Microsoft releases new patches every Month. On Feb 8th they released 12 of them. That's 12 patches we need to determine if we're going to install, test the ones we do, and deploy. We have tools to make this easier but the server environment is so diverse that it's a daunting task to face every month, with the coordination and downtime windows. Fortunately, they released none in March. But they usually do.
You could never run your IIS server for 180 days now, because you'd be patching it every 30 or less. I understand the need for the patches, and we do them to maintain the system, but if the system were a little more secure in the first place it wouldn't be so bad.
I really think they should tally up the patches for each system based on whether or not reboots are required and see how many Linux has versus Windows.
What's typical now a days? There's always been Quake and UT, but there's a whole bunch of more realistic games - Tactical Ops (a bit old now a days,) Counter Strike, Army Ops, the Tom Clancy games, etc. These are the games that would more appropriately be used with such a device, not the grueling fast-paced deathmatch games of UT and Quake.
I used to be in a TacOps game clan, and it was a blast. We did a ladder, and there were some damned good teams up there. We started at the bottom and worked our way up with planning and strategies. We weren't the best players, although we were certainly not bad, but the time we put into practice more then made up for it. It was the best time I ever had playing an online video game. If we all had to wear a shock belt, it would have been even better!
Meant to be used? Hardly. Most folks don't install all sorts of startup crap if you're talking about home users, and if they do, it's not the fault of the OS if some startup services take a long time to run. I said clean install because anything added to it afterwards causing slow downs is not the fault of Microsoft.
You could say the same thing about any OS - sure, one of my Linux box takes 5 minutes to start. It runs three VMware VM's and several other "3rd party" startup applications. Do I blame the Debian distribution because VMWare and those other apps take a long time to start up?
Paint balls hurt when they hit you. They can leave a pretty sizable welt if they hit you on a hard spot like the wrist.
So, you REALLY try not to get hit. It's exciting!
If there were a concequence to being shot in an FPS besides a two minute wait until the next round, it would make you think twice about rushing or doing something stupid, and develop more tactics. There would probably be more camping (not necessarily a bad thing if the level is designed well) and it would force you to overcome those camps with better tactics.
Of course, I wouldn't want it to be as painful as a damned stun gun.
But, in the end it wouldn't work because you have no way to be sure there's a device attached to every person playing the game over the internet. This only works if there's full participation (you know, like SPF.)
In a LAN game it could be a blast though.
If something like this came to the mass market, I'd expect it to be some weak vibrating belt thing, not an electric jolt.
"The BIOS screen alone on a typical motherboard takes at least 20 seconds, longer if it has SCSI and SATA"
I don't know what decade you're living in, but I don't even see the BIOS screen on my current desktop, because it goes by so fast the monitor doesn't have enough time to switch modes. Sometimes I might see a little glimpse of the SATA Raid controller showing the logical volume, but other then that, it's pretty much Power > Windows XP loading screen within 3 seconds.
Maybe you aren't realizing how long 20 seconds is. Stare at the clock for 20 seconds, and count with it. You'll realize this is a ridiculous claim.
"Now, Windows XP also does a lot of operations when first starting up that make it nearly useless until they complete"
Not useless. But I did say LOGIN SCREEN, not DESKTOP. Read, boy, READ next time!
" such as its indexing of the hard drive"
Huh? I don't know what kind of screwy shit you got going on but windows doesn't have to index my hard disk when it boots - the operation takes several hours on my machine (900GB volume) and it does it at night. But even if I told it to index all the time, the indexing service puts itself in a low priority and shouldn't interfere with operation of the computer (besides the disk cache being flushed out continuously.)
"So you get a login prompt, but it's a smaller lie."
Once you get the login screen, all essential software is loaded - video drivers, sound, network subsystem, etc. Even while the machine is finishing up loading other services, the computer is operable. You CAN login. Sure, it's not as fast as if you waited a few moments, but you can begin logging in instead of waiting until each and every little service is started.
"The system isn't really ready to operate for some noticeably longer period until those boot operations complete,"
It's perfectly ready to operate. Just because the desktop is a little slower loading up doesn't mean it's not ready. As I stated earlier, all essential software is loaded and the system is ready to go.
"This is typical Microsoft behavior, "
What is? Letting you login while background operations are happening? Damn you microsoft!
"deliver the usable stuff later when you get around to it and the custoomer has already bought in"
Ahh, a fair and balanced arguement.
"Linux, like other UNIX descendants, does its boot time setups in serial fashion. "
Yes, and because of this, you have to wait longer to begin using the computer.
"They can be heavily parrelized, which has led to some interesting optimization tools for exactly this purpose,"
This is what Windows does. It loads as many services as it can in parallel. Once it gets the basics done (as described earlier) it allows for user interaction ala the login prompt - while the rest of the stuff loads in the background.
"but it's been left serial on the grounds that it's much easier to code for and maintain and debug."
You speak for the Linux community?
Look - I'd rather be given the choice. You can simply wait longer before logging in, and let everything load if you want to. I prefer to begin using the computer, and have the desktop be slightly slower for a few moments while the background tasks are finishing up. Maybe your computer is ass and it can't handle the multitasking, or your disk subsystem is slow as shit and brings the computer down to a halt when loading.
Don't be blinded by your faith in Linux. I love Linux, and most of my machines are Linux. But I also don't dismiss everything else just because it's NOT Linux, or spread lies and/or FUD about other things. Linux is great, and this is NOT A FUCKING COMPARISON OF MICROSOFT TO LINUX.
I got a one year old Athlon sitting here, and it boots to the login prompt in 11 seconds.
I have a newer P4 box that gets there in 10.
I also have an Athlon 64 box that takes 35 seconds because the POST is slower - SCSI disk detection and spinup takes longer.
Now, if you read my post, I said that a fresh install will take 10 seconds. Install XP onto a machine, don't load up any additional software that starts on boot, and Windows starts very quickly.
From power-on to login prompt, most modern PC's will take no longer then 10 seconds to boot into Windows XP on a clean install. If you add lots of software that starts up at boot time, it can take a lot longer - other factors like fragmentation and such can play a big part too.
I personally don't mind loading stuff in the background when I login. I don't find it particularly annoying - and you can just wait a few more seconds before you login if you want to be a masocist like that.
"With only two commas, the "once" only applies to "darling of silicon valley" -- the "employer of" and "heralded as" are current situations."
I don't agree.
Your modified sentence with the two commas: "Transmeta, once the darling of Silicon Valley, employer of Linus Torvalds, and heralded as the new Intel, is facing bleak times."
The use of the third comma is incorrect if you follow the Oxford way of doing things; which is the way almost all printed publications follow. You don't include the comma for the last part of a list, and "is facing bleak times" is not part of the list and as such does not require a comma.
People over-use commas and your modification is a good example of that.
Your new sentence: "Transmeta -- the once darling of Silicon valley who employed Linus Torvalds and had been heralded as the new Intel -- is now facing bleak times."
First of all, you don't need to use double dashes, and in your case you're using them in place of commas but they mean the same exact thing, so it doesn't change anything. You removed all the commas in the middle of the sentence creating a more difficult to read sentence.
The original sentence is gramatically correct, and I was able to understand the meaning correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
No. With the clause, the USER of the code can choose which version of the GPL to follow.
If code says "2.0 or higher GPL" then I can choose to use 3.0 if I want to, but I can keep on truckin' with 2.0.
You're right, it's not unresonable. However, experience has shown that most AMD processors starting with the Barton core Athlon XP have been very overclockable. While some of the 130NM Athlon 64's were only somewhat overclockable, the 90NM chips are extremely overclockable with air cooling. I won't be surprised at all if the majority of overclocks on these new chips are
I really like AMD chips. Not that I have anything against Intel's chips, and Intel isn't a bad company or anything, but the AMD side of things just always seems to be more exciting for the enthusiast, and it's a lot more affordable for the folks like myself that like to keep their machines upgraded on a regular basis.
He's probably from the UK. They do things different over there.
Sure, you could be great at grammar and sentence structure. You could be an ace at using proper english.
But how would hidden talent and creativity be found? How will the teacher know if his students are actually trying hard to write their papers when all he does is check the thing with a computer program?
It's a really terrible idea and I think it's really cheezy. Ohh, he saved some time. So does that mean he now gets paid less? Does this automation get the students a discount? Yea, right.
If I'm going to put a lot of work into writing an interesting paper about something, I want someone to read it.
Althought I think actually USING the DVD set for normal use when you have broadband kinda defeats the purpose, I can think of a few reasons why it could be a good thing.
A) Archival. Average users will be able to get a working, usable snapshot of Wikipedia, with media.
B) Preservation. If Wikipedia were to shut down, you'd have a copy of it.
C) Faster access. If you have a slow connection, you can still access Wikipedia at fast speeds. This benefit dwindles over time as articles are updated.
D) Offline access. If you're on the road with no net connection, you can still access Wikipedia. This benefit also dwindles over time as articles are updated.
E) Although backed by Google now which helps with the financials, if it brings in some cash to help support itself it's likely to stay around for much longer.
There's plenty of explinations.
Here's some:
A) The chip is designed to run very cool. Overclocking it makes it hot, but it still runs fine. Just very hot.
B) The chip is designed to be run at higher speeds, and the initial offering is clocked-down. This gives AMD a few steps before more core/retooling work.
C) The cooler that comes with the CPU is very good.
Not evertything has to be done in series. While there's no big movement against MS in the USA right now, it doesn't mean that the government can't do other things, too.
I hear the complaint about software all the time. "WHY Not fix xyz bug, instead of this abc bug?!" They could be doing both at the same time.
"Are they still allowed to go after someone if they are "distributing" the patent infringing material (even if the cost is $0)?"
Yes. You're giving away someone else's work, theoretically (assuming it's not a bogus patent) and preventing them from benefitting from the labor.
If you could do this legally, you'd have the big companies putting the little ones out of business all the time. All they'd have to do is give away the same product, and kill the market.
The idiocy continues..
Next up, someone will tell me that Windows has to load the Internet into RAM, which is why the swap file gets real big, and it causes Windows to load slow when the moon is full.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS XP, NOT SERVER 2000, OR 2003. You don't run XP on servers. Unless you like the 10 connection limit.
That's a joke, right?
Yea because students have seventy bucks to spend for a desktop update..
IIRC, you said IIRC four times in one paragraph. IIRC that's just too much, if IIRC from school. We don't need to know IIRC, because IIRW, someone will correct me, IIRC how Slashdot works.
It's a touchy situation for both Microsoft and Open Source development.
The only way to write fully interoperable code is to have access to the source code, says the EU. Microsoft counters with a system that allows access to *some* code, and it's very expensive to gain access to it.
This would cut most Open Source projects out because they don't have the bankroll to pay for these fees, and even if they did most of them would be unwilling to pay for Microsoft code they can only look at.
Many commercial firms spend gobs of money on all things most companies spend gobs of money on anyways, and can pay these fees.
On the other hand, Microsoft may also be worried that if they allow access to the source without a high barrier to entry, it could mean lots of Microsoft code floating around the Internet. This is a distinct possibility, considering that you can already get every Microsoft product online.
Yes yes, I know I made a typo and put an "N" where I shouldn't have...
If Microsoft pulled out of the Market, it would prove they're using their Monopoly status (and that they have one) to pull the Market and Law in their favor.
No, they'll do what they need to do to wiggle out, and sneak back into their old ways as fast as they can, even if it means more lawsuits. They don't care about those things, they just need to keep the Monopoly going on.
I work in a Microsoft shop. We've got 600 servers, all Windows 2000 and 2003. We use the hell out of AD, we have 50 sites, and over 6,000 workstations. It's not a huge company but it's formidable.
Anyways, the bane of any Windows IT person these days is patches. Almost every single Windows patch requires a reboot. Even some of the IE patches.
Microsoft releases new patches every Month. On Feb 8th they released 12 of them. That's 12 patches we need to determine if we're going to install, test the ones we do, and deploy. We have tools to make this easier but the server environment is so diverse that it's a daunting task to face every month, with the coordination and downtime windows. Fortunately, they released none in March. But they usually do.
You could never run your IIS server for 180 days now, because you'd be patching it every 30 or less. I understand the need for the patches, and we do them to maintain the system, but if the system were a little more secure in the first place it wouldn't be so bad.
I really think they should tally up the patches for each system based on whether or not reboots are required and see how many Linux has versus Windows.
What's typical now a days? There's always been Quake and UT, but there's a whole bunch of more realistic games - Tactical Ops (a bit old now a days,) Counter Strike, Army Ops, the Tom Clancy games, etc. These are the games that would more appropriately be used with such a device, not the grueling fast-paced deathmatch games of UT and Quake.
I used to be in a TacOps game clan, and it was a blast. We did a ladder, and there were some damned good teams up there. We started at the bottom and worked our way up with planning and strategies. We weren't the best players, although we were certainly not bad, but the time we put into practice more then made up for it. It was the best time I ever had playing an online video game. If we all had to wear a shock belt, it would have been even better!
Meant to be used? Hardly. Most folks don't install all sorts of startup crap if you're talking about home users, and if they do, it's not the fault of the OS if some startup services take a long time to run. I said clean install because anything added to it afterwards causing slow downs is not the fault of Microsoft.
You could say the same thing about any OS - sure, one of my Linux box takes 5 minutes to start. It runs three VMware VM's and several other "3rd party" startup applications. Do I blame the Debian distribution because VMWare and those other apps take a long time to start up?
Paint balls hurt when they hit you. They can leave a pretty sizable welt if they hit you on a hard spot like the wrist.
So, you REALLY try not to get hit. It's exciting!
If there were a concequence to being shot in an FPS besides a two minute wait until the next round, it would make you think twice about rushing or doing something stupid, and develop more tactics. There would probably be more camping (not necessarily a bad thing if the level is designed well) and it would force you to overcome those camps with better tactics.
Of course, I wouldn't want it to be as painful as a damned stun gun.
But, in the end it wouldn't work because you have no way to be sure there's a device attached to every person playing the game over the internet. This only works if there's full participation (you know, like SPF.)
In a LAN game it could be a blast though.
If something like this came to the mass market, I'd expect it to be some weak vibrating belt thing, not an electric jolt.
I can't believe how clueless you are.
"The BIOS screen alone on a typical motherboard takes at least 20 seconds, longer if it has SCSI and SATA"
I don't know what decade you're living in, but I don't even see the BIOS screen on my current desktop, because it goes by so fast the monitor doesn't have enough time to switch modes. Sometimes I might see a little glimpse of the SATA Raid controller showing the logical volume, but other then that, it's pretty much Power > Windows XP loading screen within 3 seconds.
Maybe you aren't realizing how long 20 seconds is. Stare at the clock for 20 seconds, and count with it. You'll realize this is a ridiculous claim.
"Now, Windows XP also does a lot of operations when first starting up that make it nearly useless until they complete"
Not useless. But I did say LOGIN SCREEN, not DESKTOP. Read, boy, READ next time!
" such as its indexing of the hard drive"
Huh? I don't know what kind of screwy shit you got going on but windows doesn't have to index my hard disk when it boots - the operation takes several hours on my machine (900GB volume) and it does it at night. But even if I told it to index all the time, the indexing service puts itself in a low priority and shouldn't interfere with operation of the computer (besides the disk cache being flushed out continuously.)
"So you get a login prompt, but it's a smaller lie."
Once you get the login screen, all essential software is loaded - video drivers, sound, network subsystem, etc. Even while the machine is finishing up loading other services, the computer is operable. You CAN login. Sure, it's not as fast as if you waited a few moments, but you can begin logging in instead of waiting until each and every little service is started.
"The system isn't really ready to operate for some noticeably longer period until those boot operations complete,"
It's perfectly ready to operate. Just because the desktop is a little slower loading up doesn't mean it's not ready. As I stated earlier, all essential software is loaded and the system is ready to go.
"This is typical Microsoft behavior, "
What is? Letting you login while background operations are happening? Damn you microsoft!
"deliver the usable stuff later when you get around to it and the custoomer has already bought in"
Ahh, a fair and balanced arguement.
"Linux, like other UNIX descendants, does its boot time setups in serial fashion. "
Yes, and because of this, you have to wait longer to begin using the computer.
"They can be heavily parrelized, which has led to some interesting optimization tools for exactly this purpose,"
This is what Windows does. It loads as many services as it can in parallel. Once it gets the basics done (as described earlier) it allows for user interaction ala the login prompt - while the rest of the stuff loads in the background.
"but it's been left serial on the grounds that it's much easier to code for and maintain and debug."
You speak for the Linux community?
Look - I'd rather be given the choice. You can simply wait longer before logging in, and let everything load if you want to. I prefer to begin using the computer, and have the desktop be slightly slower for a few moments while the background tasks are finishing up. Maybe your computer is ass and it can't handle the multitasking, or your disk subsystem is slow as shit and brings the computer down to a halt when loading.
Don't be blinded by your faith in Linux. I love Linux, and most of my machines are Linux. But I also don't dismiss everything else just because it's NOT Linux, or spread lies and/or FUD about other things. Linux is great, and this is NOT A FUCKING COMPARISON OF MICROSOFT TO LINUX.
I'm guessing that they filter out profanity and 'adult' searches before putting them on the screen.
I got a one year old Athlon sitting here, and it boots to the login prompt in 11 seconds.
I have a newer P4 box that gets there in 10.
I also have an Athlon 64 box that takes 35 seconds because the POST is slower - SCSI disk detection and spinup takes longer.
Now, if you read my post, I said that a fresh install will take 10 seconds. Install XP onto a machine, don't load up any additional software that starts on boot, and Windows starts very quickly.
So bite me.
From power-on to login prompt, most modern PC's will take no longer then 10 seconds to boot into Windows XP on a clean install. If you add lots of software that starts up at boot time, it can take a lot longer - other factors like fragmentation and such can play a big part too.
I personally don't mind loading stuff in the background when I login. I don't find it particularly annoying - and you can just wait a few more seconds before you login if you want to be a masocist like that.
"With only two commas, the "once" only applies to "darling of silicon valley" -- the "employer of" and "heralded as" are current situations."
I don't agree.
Your modified sentence with the two commas: "Transmeta, once the darling of Silicon Valley, employer of Linus Torvalds, and heralded as the new Intel, is facing bleak times."
The use of the third comma is incorrect if you follow the Oxford way of doing things; which is the way almost all printed publications follow. You don't include the comma for the last part of a list, and "is facing bleak times" is not part of the list and as such does not require a comma.
People over-use commas and your modification is a good example of that.
Your new sentence: "Transmeta -- the once darling of Silicon valley who employed Linus Torvalds and had been heralded as the new Intel -- is now facing bleak times."
First of all, you don't need to use double dashes, and in your case you're using them in place of commas but they mean the same exact thing, so it doesn't change anything. You removed all the commas in the middle of the sentence creating a more difficult to read sentence.
The original sentence is gramatically correct, and I was able to understand the meaning correctly.
It was only stupidly worded for some Slashdot people that don't know how to read or read too fast so they can hurry up and bitch about it.