It will be completely unnoticeable, even if you had a stopwatch.
Not only is this easy to see theoretically, as most programs will spend the bulk of their CPU time in tight loops, which obviously will be cached the first run through... but it's also easy to see in practice, for example, when processor performance with different cache sizes is compared.
Multitasking is probably one of the worst things imagineable for processor caches, yet even with 1000's of context switches every second the difference between a single tasking machine and a multitasking machine will be hard to notice on modern hardware.
You are so short-sighted. That money will simply be spend on other luxury products. Money doesn't just disappear.
In fact, I think having that money not flow straight into the pockets of the extremely rich (the entertainment business) will probably be better for the economy (and thus result in more taxes being paid).
Yep, they understood. What they apparently still don't understand is that a country that only produces goods that can be copied easily for practically zero costs might not be the best bet.
That and of course the drag on the economy from more and more money draining in black holes over patents, copyright and other IP law (I don't think that sueing an American company over a patent by another American company will do much good to the economy as a whole).
I don't think this even works properly in the case of 0 or 1 records.
In a language that does not have (labelled) break/continue statements you are doomed to use ugly booleans to control program flow, but there should never be a need to use a goto even in those languages. I sometimes wonder however what's worse... ugly booleans to control program flow... or a goto... I hate both.
I used to program in C/C++. The reason I think Java is a better language is BECAUSE it has less features.
In C, when you show me an excerpt of code, it tells me very little. I donot know the data types involved without finding the appropriate include files (they may have been redefined, typedef'd, etc). Half of the code I see may actually be macros even though they look like function calls, and half of the code you see (especially in include files) is not even relevant at all because it is not even compiled thanks to generous use of #if blocks (and they don't even bother highlighting the blocks with some proper indentation either).
Because C is so flexible, looking at a single source file tells me very little -- I have to make many assumptions. Too much things can be changed or configured, even at a compiler level. In contrast, when you look at a Java source file, you got almost everything you need to understand that piece of code. There's no macro's, redefinitions of common data types or code that is optionally included. An int is a signed 32-bit integer, on any platform. Even that little detail helps to avoid common pitfalls when mixing signed and unsigned arithmetic (everything is signed, deal with it).
Also, each Java file compiles to a single result. It is pretty much standalone useable. Java does not allow you to split things into multiple files willy-nilly, it actually enforces a common structure to all Java projects at a basic level. In C, every project does it in a new way, there's no standard. There's no naming convention. There's basically very little convention at all, at any level.
That is not to say Java is perfect, but less is more does seem to apply here. It gives the programmer less choices, which in turn makes code easier to understand and maintain. It's also strict, which makes later changes and refactorings much more controllable. Unlike a language like Python, where any project that spans more than a few pages can have subtle bugs just because you mispelled a variable.
Hiding buttons and other interesting things until I mouse over them just means that people that look for things without pointing their mouse everywhere will never find your cleverly hidden gadgets.
If no swap is being used, than you obviously won't have the problems I mentioned.
For me however I noticed a definite improvement when it comes to leaving my system running overnight when swap is off. Everything is instantly up and responsive still in the morning (or next evening, or next week).
It's possible though Win7 was improved in this regard. Perhaps it no longer will slowly swap programs out under disk cache pressure.
Also, and this is something most swap-proponents donot seem to understand: using more memory for long term disk cache (as opposed to prefetching) is only beneficial if it is caching data that:
1) is actually accessed more than once (caching a big disk copy is therefore usually pointless)
2) is not being requested at speeds slower than harddisk speed (ie, internet traffic, CPU bound processes that read files, movie playback, music playback, etc).
It is also pointless to increase a 6 GB disk cache to 7 GB by swapping out half your programs. If the data didn't fit in 6 GB, it is likely it won't fit in 7 GB either.
So, having the system make more room for the disk cache by swapping out programs has to be for a VERY good reason. Maybe they did get something right in these newfangled Windows versions:)
Trust me, that rarely happens. With 8 GB, you'd need to have 4 of those processes. Chances are that they will be killed (for using too much memory) before that.
That's wrong. Turning off the page file can have very beneficial effects.
It is basically making a statement to the OS: "I donot want you to swap out Firefox/Word/Paintshop to disk EVER, even if I not touched them in two days as I may need them at a moment's notice".
The end result is that those programs remain snappy as they are always completely in RAM (as the OS has no choice in the matter).
If you donot turn off the page file, then the OS will begin wondering after a few hours of not touching those programs: "Should I perhaps swap these programs out to make more room for...."
a) that blu-ray movie the user is watching (linear read) ?
b) that download that is trickling in at low speed (but still runs fast enough to consume most of your cache overnight) ?
c) random unpredictable file accesses (your machine acts as a file serer) ?
d) that huge copy that is running in the background ?
Note that NONE of these actually benefit much from long-term disk caching... yet many operating systems will decide to try and make more space for the disk cache (by swapping out unused programs) if that happens to be the primary function of the machine for a few hours.
And then of course, when you go back to your favourite program... guess what, your machine is swapping again, despite having 8 GB of RAM.
Disclaimer: yes, I have 8 GB of RAM and swap is off for Windows because of the above issues. Same for the 4 GB Linux box.
Maybe they should hire some of the hackers... apparently they can add these "services" without requiring a permanent online connection -- and they don't even need the original source code.
Stored procedures... yes, please, let's have our business logic in not just one place but in two places! Let's be dependent on one database vendor for the rest of our lives! Let's program software in a language that is bolted ontop of SQL, poorly!
However, the real possibility to look out for is government intervention. It is simple economics. Not only are there fewer sales due to piracy but even more so there are fewer taxes paid.
And all that money is going to end up on saving accounts or simply disappear into thin air?
No, of course not. It is going to be spend on other *luxury* goods. It is infact highly likely that money spend in such way will actually be better for the economy than spending it on a product that is basically going to end up filling the pockets of the very rich. Oh, it will end up there eventually anyway, but the more steps in between before it reaches those people the better for the economy.
Also, if you think piracy can be stamped out, even WITH government help, than you need a reality check yourself. How do you prevent a digital good from being traded and replicated? How do you prevent people swapping USB sticks? Harddisks? Mailing each other cd/dvd/blu-ray discs?
There's only one way, complete loss of privacy and full government oversight of everything you do. Anything less, and piracy... or more accurately, the free market, will just find a way to do it anyway.
It's no big loss. Even if this means the end of movies and music, there's plenty out there already to last a lifetime. Old "entertainment" is the industries own worst enemy. It's no wonder they don't want it the end up in the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot proxies on that list, so rule 1 and 2 might as well not exist.
It will be completely unnoticeable, even if you had a stopwatch.
Not only is this easy to see theoretically, as most programs will spend the bulk of their CPU time in tight loops, which obviously will be cached the first run through... but it's also easy to see in practice, for example, when processor performance with different cache sizes is compared.
Multitasking is probably one of the worst things imagineable for processor caches, yet even with 1000's of context switches every second the difference between a single tasking machine and a multitasking machine will be hard to notice on modern hardware.
We'll know once it is too late :)
You are so short-sighted. That money will simply be spend on other luxury products. Money doesn't just disappear.
In fact, I think having that money not flow straight into the pockets of the extremely rich (the entertainment business) will probably be better for the economy (and thus result in more taxes being paid).
Yep, they understood. What they apparently still don't understand is that a country that only produces goods that can be copied easily for practically zero costs might not be the best bet.
That and of course the drag on the economy from more and more money draining in black holes over patents, copyright and other IP law (I don't think that sueing an American company over a patent by another American company will do much good to the economy as a whole).
Get two such teams together. Then add them together to work on a single large project. See if productivity increased by a factor of 2.
Maybe you should stop tagging things onto unrelated bills and allow them to be voted on seperately.
I don't think this even works properly in the case of 0 or 1 records.
In a language that does not have (labelled) break/continue statements you are doomed to use ugly booleans to control program flow, but there should never be a need to use a goto even in those languages. I sometimes wonder however what's worse... ugly booleans to control program flow... or a goto... I hate both.
I used to program in C/C++. The reason I think Java is a better language is BECAUSE it has less features.
In C, when you show me an excerpt of code, it tells me very little. I donot know the data types involved without finding the appropriate include files (they may have been redefined, typedef'd, etc). Half of the code I see may actually be macros even though they look like function calls, and half of the code you see (especially in include files) is not even relevant at all because it is not even compiled thanks to generous use of #if blocks (and they don't even bother highlighting the blocks with some proper indentation either).
Because C is so flexible, looking at a single source file tells me very little -- I have to make many assumptions. Too much things can be changed or configured, even at a compiler level. In contrast, when you look at a Java source file, you got almost everything you need to understand that piece of code. There's no macro's, redefinitions of common data types or code that is optionally included. An int is a signed 32-bit integer, on any platform. Even that little detail helps to avoid common pitfalls when mixing signed and unsigned arithmetic (everything is signed, deal with it).
Also, each Java file compiles to a single result. It is pretty much standalone useable. Java does not allow you to split things into multiple files willy-nilly, it actually enforces a common structure to all Java projects at a basic level. In C, every project does it in a new way, there's no standard. There's no naming convention. There's basically very little convention at all, at any level.
That is not to say Java is perfect, but less is more does seem to apply here. It gives the programmer less choices, which in turn makes code easier to understand and maintain. It's also strict, which makes later changes and refactorings much more controllable. Unlike a language like Python, where any project that spans more than a few pages can have subtle bugs just because you mispelled a variable.
Must be user error, we all know that software is proven to be bug free before it is shipped.
Bankrupting someone else is hardly a deterrent...
I could be hit by a car if I go outside, yet that doesn't stop me either.
Without America, internet would never have evolved. /sarcasm off
Nah, hover is fundamentally flawed.
Hiding buttons and other interesting things until I mouse over them just means that people that look for things without pointing their mouse everywhere will never find your cleverly hidden gadgets.
I must have missed what is wrong with that sig. Oh.. and offtopic.
Hm, I never noticed that guy in my pirated copy. Pirating wins again!
If no swap is being used, than you obviously won't have the problems I mentioned.
For me however I noticed a definite improvement when it comes to leaving my system running overnight when swap is off. Everything is instantly up and responsive still in the morning (or next evening, or next week).
It's possible though Win7 was improved in this regard. Perhaps it no longer will slowly swap programs out under disk cache pressure.
Also, and this is something most swap-proponents donot seem to understand: using more memory for long term disk cache (as opposed to prefetching) is only beneficial if it is caching data that:
1) is actually accessed more than once (caching a big disk copy is therefore usually pointless)
2) is not being requested at speeds slower than harddisk speed (ie, internet traffic, CPU bound processes that read files, movie playback, music playback, etc).
It is also pointless to increase a 6 GB disk cache to 7 GB by swapping out half your programs. If the data didn't fit in 6 GB, it is likely it won't fit in 7 GB either.
So, having the system make more room for the disk cache by swapping out programs has to be for a VERY good reason. Maybe they did get something right in these newfangled Windows versions :)
Trust me, that rarely happens. With 8 GB, you'd need to have 4 of those processes. Chances are that they will be killed (for using too much memory) before that.
That's wrong. Turning off the page file can have very beneficial effects.
It is basically making a statement to the OS: "I donot want you to swap out Firefox/Word/Paintshop to disk EVER, even if I not touched them in two days as I may need them at a moment's notice".
The end result is that those programs remain snappy as they are always completely in RAM (as the OS has no choice in the matter).
If you donot turn off the page file, then the OS will begin wondering after a few hours of not touching those programs: "Should I perhaps swap these programs out to make more room for...."
a) that blu-ray movie the user is watching (linear read) ?
b) that download that is trickling in at low speed (but still runs fast enough to consume most of your cache overnight) ?
c) random unpredictable file accesses (your machine acts as a file serer) ?
d) that huge copy that is running in the background ?
Note that NONE of these actually benefit much from long-term disk caching... yet many operating systems will decide to try and make more space for the disk cache (by swapping out unused programs) if that happens to be the primary function of the machine for a few hours.
And then of course, when you go back to your favourite program... guess what, your machine is swapping again, despite having 8 GB of RAM.
Disclaimer: yes, I have 8 GB of RAM and swap is off for Windows because of the above issues. Same for the 4 GB Linux box.
Maybe they should hire some of the hackers... apparently they can add these "services" without requiring a permanent online connection -- and they don't even need the original source code.
Stored procedures... yes, please, let's have our business logic in not just one place but in two places!
Let's be dependent on one database vendor for the rest of our lives!
Let's program software in a language that is bolted ontop of SQL, poorly!
Sorry, didn't want to disappoint you :)
I would run OSX... but I can't bend over that far.
And all that money is going to end up on saving accounts or simply disappear into thin air?
No, of course not. It is going to be spend on other *luxury* goods. It is infact highly likely that money spend in such way will actually be better for the economy than spending it on a product that is basically going to end up filling the pockets of the very rich. Oh, it will end up there eventually anyway, but the more steps in between before it reaches those people the better for the economy.
Also, if you think piracy can be stamped out, even WITH government help, than you need a reality check yourself. How do you prevent a digital good from being traded and replicated? How do you prevent people swapping USB sticks? Harddisks? Mailing each other cd/dvd/blu-ray discs?
There's only one way, complete loss of privacy and full government oversight of everything you do. Anything less, and piracy... or more accurately, the free market, will just find a way to do it anyway.
It's no big loss. Even if this means the end of movies and music, there's plenty out there already to last a lifetime. Old "entertainment" is the industries own worst enemy. It's no wonder they don't want it the end up in the public domain.
You mean the platform default UI I assume, as SWT uses native widgets?
You mean the 256 MB of memory Eclipse consumes at maximum (default settings) ?
I don't think you really tried it.
It's a quote, not a fact.
This may be hard to believe...
but I could live without entertainment.