That not the point, i know the internals of every console out there as good as anybody.
I wasnt talking about the hardware, but about the usage pattern (no long boot times, usually longer play sessions, no multitasking) that makes a difference between game console and desktop pc.
A planet where there a gas tanks available (refilled twice a year), or oiltanks (in the cellar, even for a whole house with 15 appartments enough for a year), where there are heat pumps, or heat distribution from heath/energy power plants.
Of course heating by electricity is such an idiocy (imagine all the fucking with entropy to convert part of the heat to unsable energy in the power plant) that everybody designing or building such a house should be shot. Or send to iraq to secure energy to power it.
I mean, those are just more examples of the vast open starwars universe shrinking and shrinking because everybody knows everybody else from way back...
Come on. Google ought to show something better after months of wait. This is just the basic blue marble picture, which everybody can download as a whole from nasa, and has only a resolution of about a km per pixel. Implenting it should have taken about 15minutes...
Here are two statements. One is true, one is anti Mircosoft. What would you say to get a slashdot story: It's Windows fault that the first run is slower. Due to windows file caching further runs will be much faster.
"Also look at the axes and their layout. The first graph has the y-axis (left side) going in 50 increments, and the second graph has the y-axis going in 100 increments. This distorts the graphs to make it look like they are the same results, but actually they look very different when graphed properly. What's worse is that the x-axis for both graphs is the same which means they are changing one scale (y-axis) without adjusting the other scale (x-axis). This creates a distorted graph."
Well, no idiot. When graphed properly, they look the same. Both tests show an absolutely compareable performance ratio. What does it matter that the faster machine runs both OSses faster? How does this skew anything? Is the concept of relative speed increases a new concept for the creator of the article?
A REAL loaded graph would surpress the y-axis or something to push the lower graph further down, or to skew the proportions.
Man, is today really shit article day on slashdot?
Does install size matter if it starts faster and doesnt need more RAM than a "non-bloat" software? Especially considering that 460MB ram is about the monetary equivaltent of a chewing gum?
We know NOTHING about the system of this guy, only that he has also works intalled (and resisting in memory), that he installed office over a year ago and nothing else. Its simply impossible to get ANY reliable data out of this kind of situation.
But ok, if you want to justify your spin, that the right way to do it.
I dont think the reviewer has the mental capacity to actually take such things into account.
Its more likely because openoffice was freshly installed, but ms-office was "installed more than a year ago". If he doesnt even do a clean install, he surely doesnt defrag his HD... But even with no autoloader and a fragmented hd it shouldnt take that long, so i guess he just had his whole spyware|utility stuff running in the background.
Perhaps by puting the title "Performance comparison of OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 and Microsoft Office 200" as a headling, and then submitting it as a story to slashdot, smartass?
If he doesnt bother to do a fresh install of the office suit, he shouldnt do benchmarking. even if its not "professional". What he does is an insult to every amateur.
I mean, what is he comparing? And what shit has else running to get his start times that slow, if he obviously ran the tests on his private machine that wasnt cleaned for more than a year?!
Also, i dont get what his problem with the msworks process is... And why it is running anyway, because i just started word to check and i dont have such a task running...
Slashdot Mirror
That not the point, i know the internals of every console out there as good as anybody.
I wasnt talking about the hardware, but about the usage pattern (no long boot times, usually longer play sessions, no multitasking) that makes a difference between game console and desktop pc.
A planet where there a gas tanks available (refilled twice a year), or oiltanks (in the cellar, even for a whole house with 15 appartments enough for a year), where there are heat pumps, or heat distribution from heath/energy power plants.
But i guess you live in the usa, right?
Of course heating by electricity is such an idiocy (imagine all the fucking with entropy to convert part of the heat to unsable energy in the power plant) that everybody designing or building such a house should be shot. Or send to iraq to secure energy to power it.
How about switching the thing off?
Its not that a game console is something like a desktop pc, running the whole day just to be quickly accessable....
I guess the greatparent was sarcastic.
...
I mean, those are just more examples of the vast open starwars universe shrinking and shrinking because everybody knows everybody else from way back
Well, reading your posting made me remember this:& res=l
http://penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2005-04-27
Ok, now you ABSOLUTELY DISQUALIFIED yourself als an idiotic fanatic.
Sorry, be happy with your religion, i just use a tool.
Its called keyhole and was BOUGHT by google.
You know, the microsoft approach to getting know how...
should be
http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/
Well, colour picutes require a colour monitor, so obviously b&w pictures are better?
Html isnt for everything.
Take a look at worldwind.
Its free, offers better (satellite) data than google maps and even has 3d hight information.
http://worldwind.nasa.gov/
Come on. Google ought to show something better after months of wait.
This is just the basic blue marble picture, which everybody can download as a whole from nasa, and has only a resolution of about a km per pixel.
Implenting it should have taken about 15minutes...
Yeah.
They should post a huge list on their websites with all numbers that arent compromised. Just so you can be sure...
I guess you never saw a REAL flamethrower...
:)
The thing Bobba Fett has is a glorified barbecue booster, not a flamethrower
You dont seem to understand that the law only requires the ISP to provide parents with the option of enabling the filtering...
Well, also notice his spin.
Here are two statements. One is true, one is anti Mircosoft. What would you say to get a slashdot story:
It's Windows fault that the first run is slower.
Due to windows file caching further runs will be much faster.
You may not have any clue about computers or anything, but i can ease your mind: you dont have a 4200 rpm drive in your celeron. :)
Be happy
Well, no idiot. When graphed properly, they look the same. Both tests show an absolutely compareable performance ratio. What does it matter that the faster machine runs both OSses faster? How does this skew anything? Is the concept of relative speed increases a new concept for the creator of the article?
A REAL loaded graph would surpress the y-axis or something to push the lower graph further down, or to skew the proportions.
Man, is today really shit article day on slashdot?
Does install size matter if it starts faster and doesnt need more RAM than a "non-bloat" software?
Especially considering that 460MB ram is about the monetary equivaltent of a chewing gum?
We know NOTHING about the system of this guy, only that he has also works intalled (and resisting in memory), that he installed office over a year ago and nothing else.
Its simply impossible to get ANY reliable data out of this kind of situation.
But ok, if you want to justify your spin, that the right way to do it.
I dont think the reviewer has the mental capacity to actually take such things into account.
Its more likely because openoffice was freshly installed, but ms-office was "installed more than a year ago".
If he doesnt even do a clean install, he surely doesnt defrag his HD...
But even with no autoloader and a fragmented hd it shouldnt take that long, so i guess he just had his whole spyware|utility stuff running in the background.
Perhaps by puting the title "Performance comparison of OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 and Microsoft Office 200" as a headling, and then submitting it as a story to slashdot, smartass?
If he doesnt bother to do a fresh install of the office suit, he shouldnt do benchmarking. even if its not "professional". What he does is an insult to every amateur.
Please Slashdot!
Do NOT plug stories submitted by their creator!
The signal to shit ratio is just to low...
I mean, what is he comparing?
And what shit has else running to get his start times that slow, if he obviously ran the tests on his private machine that wasnt cleaned for more than a year?!
Also, i dont get what his problem with the msworks process is... And why it is running anyway, because i just started word to check and i dont have such a task running...
Why?
openoffice also plugs a little "office starter" in the autostart list, so its just fair.