MS splitting with their legacy apps? Say it isn't so!!!! But why not? It would force, ahem, encourage, sales of their new Office package and server components.
As long as you don't want to install on a HD bigger than ~120GB, or use a wireless network easily, then yes, windows 2000 is pretty much the same thing, without the fancy graphics. That would be a partition bigger than 120GB, not a HD, IIRC.
Wireless shouldn't be a problem, unless there's something I'm unfamiliar with (as my Win2K system worked just fine wirelessly for 4 years)
You still have a router of some sort somewhere along that last mile, otherwise you can't share cable capacity. So multicasting would specifically help the last mile problem.
In fact, AT&T is implementing just such a solution for their uVerse service to enable more HD channels.
The other being that the internet did account for precisely these usage patterns long before the current "morons" came along, and that it was already solved. The fact that the "morons" in question are ignorant of that, and that no MS OS supports it yet (I don't believe Vista fixed it) and that the routers that were bought don't support it do not negate the fact that the internet design does support it.
Even for BitTorrent it would be fine, except BitTorrent would have to be modified to make use of the interesting possibilities multicasting allows.
P2P applications would benefit by having the seeds segment the requested application and setting up their multicast stream(s) and then sending 1 packet that goes to all the clients. The segments would be streamed, so you'll get strips of a requested file per stream. Since the strips are sequential, any peer can join at any time, and when the stream is complete, can ask for a restart up to the point they started. There's obviously a lot of room for optimization both on the peer and the seed side of this equation, but it would result in at least an order of magnitude increase in efficiency of P2P networks.
It could also be made to have some semblance of TOR by having delegated "server seeds" that merely route to a stream from a seed or other "server seed", thus making pinpointing your P2P source(s) non-trivial.
These guys are morons and should go read up on multicasting.
It was designed for precisely this type of traffic. P2P would benefit enormously if it went across multicast channels instead. But that would assume the routers of the ISP supported multicasting, and most probably do not.
No. Humans are primates, and are social animals that form groups. Primate groups are united by "group calls" (somewhat like wolf packs). Whatever music you hear over and over again is subconsciously recognised as your group call, and you instinctively want to hear it more. What the record industry does is saturates your aural space with particular tunes, which your monkey brain then picks up as "your" group call. You could "choose" which group you belong to by picking particular radio stations, within strict limits. Nowadays, that's been shattered by the internet (thank fuck), but it's a genie they _really_ want to put back in the bottle. While I find the monkey brain idea interesting, the rest is just downright correct.
It's getting close these days, but the performance on those tower arrays was something to behold... matched by a 6 SATA drive software RAID 0 set of drives these days.....;)
Don't forget, you could get 1GB/s continuous data transfers on those systems, and that was something.
That's probably because of the teeth rattling drumming Harley's induce in the cranium, esp in those that think it's right to replace perfectly good mufflers with straight pipes because it makes them "better".
I haven't purchased a SCSI part in nearly 10 years. That would be because SCSI is so darn reliable. My Mylex 1164 and 9 and 18 GB drives are still running fine, except I chunked the drives in favor of 36GB drives about 6 years ago.... what was I saying about reliability again?
Once SATA became relatively commonplace and 3Ware was shown to be reliable, I just never looked back. On the highest of the high end where budget isn't a constraint I guess it might still be useful. Otherwise, stick a fork in it. SCSI is still faster, and last time I checked, it was very very difficult to make a 200+ drive RAID tower out of SATA drives. (It's been a few years...)
I'm pretty sure those would be run either by the two municipalities, or some backbone type provider....
It's the last mile issue that's causing a lot of problems. Not the links between municipalities, esp in the larger cities. The big pipes are profitable. You might recall the sale of some minor companies like MFS and UUNET back in the day.
Naah, what they should do is separate the lines from the service, and not allow service companies to own lines. That separation will automatically create more competition.
Oh, and the line owning companies would be localized, since it is a municipality issue anyways.
I too like the higher level constructs, especially in Java these days. However, I dislike some aspect as well, for instance, ThreadLocals, which, as far as I'm concerned, are apparently harder for people to use correctly than it is to have them write parallel code. They're my personal pet peeve at the moment, as I'll be unwinding that wonderful mess because someone was too lazy to add a DVO to method calls within their own code. ThreadLocals should never be used inside a monolithic code base and probably almost never at all, as there's always another option that will be easier to implement and debug as well as being more scalable by virtue of a process not being tied to a single thread nor monopolizing that thread while in progress.
The DirectX SDK comes with a "debug"...that you'll get about 0.0001FPS rendering little more than a rotating, untextured cube. Still, you want DX10 on XP? You've got it. I can't imagine that devs would have put up with anything near that framerate for debugging purposes. I know that would have ended any DX10 dev anywhere I worked, as it would have taken longer to "debug" the DX10 portion than it would have to write the rest of the game.
I should have said: Most problems do not EASILY parallelize to large scales.... You do not recognize the fact that most programmers are mediocre. You can scream at them that it is easy, but they will still end up staring at you like deer in the headlights.
Sorry - we are entering the "Model T" mass production era of software. First, no one said parallelism is easy (in this thread anyways). I don't care that most "programmers" are mediocre and will never be able to understand parallelism, much like I don't care that most native English speaking Americans will never be able to understand nor speak Mandarin Chinese. They have about the same relevance to parallel programming as we're not talking about the masses being able to do parallel programming, speak Mandarin, or make Model Ts, for that matter.
Speaking of your "Model T" mass production comment, I'd quite disagree, I'd say we've entered a split environment of Yugo production (that'd be your mediocre programmers) and the perhaps 10% of the programmers that can actually code and are capable of understanding higher level concepts. I'm being gracious with that 10%, my personal experience has shown that fewer than 3% of programmers are actually capable of coherent coding. That most likely has to do with how programmers are taught or the lack thereof, but that's another discussion entirely.
It's not, there are thousands of improvements between XP and 2000, and claiming otherwise because you can make XP look like 2000 is right out of the armchair "evangelist" cookbook. New versions of MSMQ, IIS, COM+, improvements in DCOM, expanded group policy settings, QoS providers, better WMI coverage, better wireless support, a firewall, the security center, better multi-user support, etc. etc. Oh, and themes, yes.
MSMQ, IIS, group policy settings, QoS, WMI, firewall and security center are all don't cares. Those things only pertain to a small fraction of the PC using public.
multi-user support is as well, but it's relatively flaky at times and a resource hog, so it's turned off as well.
So, when you get down to what 99% of the populace uses a PC for: checking email, browsing the web, writing documents etc, Win2K and XP are effectively the same.
And, if you remove all those new services from XP, you'll get a system that's almost as fast and stable as a properly configured Win2K system.
Around this point people start thinking 'ooh, I'll type in "use Linux", and feel all smug'.
Well, just as soon as you can make all the games companies release Linux native versions of their stuff, I'd go for it. Until then, well, I've played Tux Racer once already, so I guess I'll stick with windows as my primary desktop machine. Interesting, so your desktop machine is primarily for gaming then, and the latest Windows games, from the sound of it?
Most of my home use is photography and video, for which I find Macs better and easier to use. At work, I currently use XP for my desktop, but its oddities are causing me to try out Ubuntu. All my servers are Linux/Solaris, hence the lack of interest in XP.
This looks like a classic poster boy for bad patents: the abstract indicates that Guitar Hero doesn't violate anything. First off, they explictly state musician. Guitar Hero players? Not hardly. Second, they state musical instrument. I don't think 4 buttons counts as an instrument. There are also no 3-D head gear, nor headphones involved.
If you start reading the claims, the entire thing falls apart at every level. First off - there's no instrument, and certainly no audio signal generated by the Guitar Hero "guitar", which appears to be the crux of their patent. Then again, IANAIP/PL (IP/Patent Lawyer).
I'm not even sure what exactly they're patenting here. There's no "System" that I can see, other than a very high level concept drawing and what looks like a basic high level distortion processor schematic. I was under the impression that "methods" like the abstract idea being described could not be patented.
It's somewhat sad, since JRR created a huge amount of content. However, when it's written in a style that's as difficult to read as his 'other' books are, they'll remain, for the most part, obscure. Reading the Children of Hurin was cake compared to the Silmarillion, and I know in part that the stilted language of the passages was affected on purpose to give a certain impression. I think someone going through it with readability in mind wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but might reduce the whole to a much smaller work if care were not taken to keep the character of the works.
Slashdot Mirror
MS splitting with their legacy apps? Say it isn't so!!!! But why not? It would force, ahem, encourage, sales of their new Office package and server components. As long as you don't want to install on a HD bigger than ~120GB, or use a wireless network easily, then yes, windows 2000 is pretty much the same thing, without the fancy graphics. That would be a partition bigger than 120GB, not a HD, IIRC.
Wireless shouldn't be a problem, unless there's something I'm unfamiliar with (as my Win2K system worked just fine wirelessly for 4 years)
You still have a router of some sort somewhere along that last mile, otherwise you can't share cable capacity. So multicasting would specifically help the last mile problem.
In fact, AT&T is implementing just such a solution for their uVerse service to enable more HD channels.
I do believe that was one of my unstated points.
The other being that the internet did account for precisely these usage patterns long before the current "morons" came along, and that it was already solved. The fact that the "morons" in question are ignorant of that, and that no MS OS supports it yet (I don't believe Vista fixed it) and that the routers that were bought don't support it do not negate the fact that the internet design does support it.
Even for BitTorrent it would be fine, except BitTorrent would have to be modified to make use of the interesting possibilities multicasting allows.
P2P applications would benefit by having the seeds segment the requested application and setting up their multicast stream(s) and then sending 1 packet that goes to all the clients. The segments would be streamed, so you'll get strips of a requested file per stream. Since the strips are sequential, any peer can join at any time, and when the stream is complete, can ask for a restart up to the point they started. There's obviously a lot of room for optimization both on the peer and the seed side of this equation, but it would result in at least an order of magnitude increase in efficiency of P2P networks.
It could also be made to have some semblance of TOR by having delegated "server seeds" that merely route to a stream from a seed or other "server seed", thus making pinpointing your P2P source(s) non-trivial.
These guys are morons and should go read up on multicasting.
It was designed for precisely this type of traffic. P2P would benefit enormously if it went across multicast channels instead. But that would assume the routers of the ISP supported multicasting, and most probably do not.
It's getting close these days, but the performance on those tower arrays was something to behold... matched by a 6 SATA drive software RAID 0 set of drives these days..... ;)
Don't forget, you could get 1GB/s continuous data transfers on those systems, and that was something.
That's probably because of the teeth rattling drumming Harley's induce in the cranium, esp in those that think it's right to replace perfectly good mufflers with straight pipes because it makes them "better".
I'm pretty sure those would be run either by the two municipalities, or some backbone type provider....
It's the last mile issue that's causing a lot of problems. Not the links between municipalities, esp in the larger cities. The big pipes are profitable. You might recall the sale of some minor companies like MFS and UUNET back in the day.
Naah, what they should do is separate the lines from the service, and not allow service companies to own lines. That separation will automatically create more competition.
Oh, and the line owning companies would be localized, since it is a municipality issue anyways.
I too like the higher level constructs, especially in Java these days. However, I dislike some aspect as well, for instance, ThreadLocals, which, as far as I'm concerned, are apparently harder for people to use correctly than it is to have them write parallel code. They're my personal pet peeve at the moment, as I'll be unwinding that wonderful mess because someone was too lazy to add a DVO to method calls within their own code. ThreadLocals should never be used inside a monolithic code base and probably almost never at all, as there's always another option that will be easier to implement and debug as well as being more scalable by virtue of a process not being tied to a single thread nor monopolizing that thread while in progress.
I seem to recall that being in beta prior to 99, and this patent sounds like it was written based on Seti.
But you'll back off at 245+kph, at least in a Mercedes. When the back end picks up....
(Yes yes, on the Autobahn... before someone bursts a blood vessel:)
Sorry - we are entering the "Model T" mass production era of software. First, no one said parallelism is easy (in this thread anyways). I don't care that most "programmers" are mediocre and will never be able to understand parallelism, much like I don't care that most native English speaking Americans will never be able to understand nor speak Mandarin Chinese. They have about the same relevance to parallel programming as we're not talking about the masses being able to do parallel programming, speak Mandarin, or make Model Ts, for that matter.
Speaking of your "Model T" mass production comment, I'd quite disagree, I'd say we've entered a split environment of Yugo production (that'd be your mediocre programmers) and the perhaps 10% of the programmers that can actually code and are capable of understanding higher level concepts. I'm being gracious with that 10%, my personal experience has shown that fewer than 3% of programmers are actually capable of coherent coding. That most likely has to do with how programmers are taught or the lack thereof, but that's another discussion entirely.
you know, I wonder about that. Wasn't there some story about "pre" D10 dev kits being made available to various select developers that ran on XP?
Win2K drivers are more common than Vista drivers.
Unless, of course, you want to run shiny new things. I'll bet he's not running any games past D9 on it.
MSMQ, IIS, group policy settings, QoS, WMI, firewall and security center are all don't cares. Those things only pertain to a small fraction of the PC using public.It's not, there are thousands of improvements between XP and 2000, and claiming otherwise because you can make XP look like 2000 is right out of the armchair "evangelist" cookbook. New versions of MSMQ, IIS, COM+, improvements in DCOM, expanded group policy settings, QoS providers, better WMI coverage, better wireless support, a firewall, the security center, better multi-user support, etc. etc. Oh, and themes, yes.
multi-user support is as well, but it's relatively flaky at times and a resource hog, so it's turned off as well.
So, when you get down to what 99% of the populace uses a PC for: checking email, browsing the web, writing documents etc, Win2K and XP are effectively the same.
And, if you remove all those new services from XP, you'll get a system that's almost as fast and stable as a properly configured Win2K system.
I run Oracle on Linux - it barely fits into 4GB. Add in a few other daemons, and I can easily fill 8GB.
1) There is a major segment of the market that Macs don't cover. It seems that market segment is getting smaller, giving Apple's rising share.
It's certainly a list worth keeping, and also makes you think twice before doing any business with GoDaddy.
Well, just as soon as you can make all the games companies release Linux native versions of their stuff, I'd go for it. Until then, well, I've played Tux Racer once already, so I guess I'll stick with windows as my primary desktop machine. Interesting, so your desktop machine is primarily for gaming then, and the latest Windows games, from the sound of it?
Most of my home use is photography and video, for which I find Macs better and easier to use. At work, I currently use XP for my desktop, but its oddities are causing me to try out Ubuntu. All my servers are Linux/Solaris, hence the lack of interest in XP.
This looks like a classic poster boy for bad patents: the abstract indicates that Guitar Hero doesn't violate anything. First off, they explictly state musician. Guitar Hero players? Not hardly. Second, they state musical instrument. I don't think 4 buttons counts as an instrument. There are also no 3-D head gear, nor headphones involved.
If you start reading the claims, the entire thing falls apart at every level. First off - there's no instrument, and certainly no audio signal generated by the Guitar Hero "guitar", which appears to be the crux of their patent. Then again, IANAIP/PL (IP/Patent Lawyer).
I'm not even sure what exactly they're patenting here. There's no "System" that I can see, other than a very high level concept drawing and what looks like a basic high level distortion processor schematic. I was under the impression that "methods" like the abstract idea being described could not be patented.