These are important statistics, which I had read before. I'm not sure exactly what they mean, though. If we measure popularity purely in terms of cards sold, I'd say Nvidia is the more popular at the high end. I almost bought Nvidia this time because I couldn't find the ATI card I wanted (finally found it, though). I considered a 6800GT because of it's price/performance over the X800XT, as well. Also, I think Nvidia has more variety in the high-end, while neither Nvidia nor ATI have sold many of the very highest-end.
However, and I think this is a significant point, ATI's marketing/business strategy has become one of using the high-end to drive sales at the low-end (nvidia probably isn't much different). For example, if I'm a casual gamer, maybe I read all the benchmarks and see ATI wins all the DX9 ones (with the X800 XT PE). Then I realize that card costs $800, and buy a $200 ATI board, without realizing the 9600xyz actually sucks compared to the 6600abc (these are contrived examples). So sales at the low-end, which I believe ATI won (so handily, in fact, to win in overall units sold), may actually be significant in determining what high end cards are preferred by gamers.
Finally, we have yet to see how the 6800/X800s really stack up against each other in sales, as most of the top models are still barely available! This really disgusts me, by the way, although I did get mine.
So, although I admit I'm just hazarding guesses and nitpicking at statistics, I do think it's significant that ATI, who previously sold less than Nvidia in all segments, is now selling more boards. It is also significant that Nvidia sold more high end boards. What these things signify is hard to say, with all the variables involved. But I don't think one can conclusively say that Nvidia is still the preferred card. If nothing else, you must admit Nvidia has lost a great deal of ground in the last year.
They just are gamers who typically bought their hardware a long time ago, back when Nvidia was king (Most people who play half-life have older hardware, in my experience). Most of them would probably buy ATI if they bought today. That's just a guess, of course, but I bet it's true. Why? Because I, and all my friends, bought ATI for our upgrades this year for the current host of games out there.
By the way, I loved HL/CS, and I played it for years on my Geforce3. But this time, a Radeon X800 XT made more sense for me. Single slot, fairly quiet, and very fast. Those were my criteria (and being ~$500 or less).
Most people on gaming forums are tilting ATI right now, I'd say, even those that have Nvidia. I personally will buy whatever seems the best at any given time, but I'd have to say that right now, I (and most people I know) "like" ATI better (we'd prefer the latest ATI cards over the latest Nvidia ones).
I use KDE (posting from KDE on FreeBSD, actually) and Windows extensively. Your response reeks of the same sort of bias you're complaining about.
> Using Windows is an exercise in frustration for me
That's a fair statement, but it doesn't mean Windows is unuseable or inherently frustrating. It just means that you personally are uncomfortable with it. I would guess you don't use it much, if you are that frustrated with it, because the behavior is very consistent and predictable. Yes, there are quirks, but after using Win2k for several years, I'm aware of the majority of them...and guess what? I'm pretty happy with how Windows works.
> not being able to change it to some sane > behaviour is even worse
Windows can be tweaked quite a bit, although not nearly as much as KDE/Gnome desktops. However, "sane behaviour" is completely in the mind of the user. As far as I'm concerned, Windows behavior is completely "sane." It may not be the most efficient, or what I'd prefer, but it makes sense once you understand it. A lot of people believe that mouse/keyboard is a horrible interface design, but once you understand how it works, it seems "sane." I imagine the same is true of whatever desktop you use.
KDE's desktop is fine, although it does have some quirks that I find annoying. For example, I like to click on icons, then use "delete" or "F2" to rename, etc. But clicking on the icon once launches it, so I end up using the right-click+ rename or something similar. Is this "sane" behavior? Yes, but it is annoying when you aren't used to it. The same is true of many Windows quirks.
"Sane behavior" is in the mind of the user, which is largely shaped by which OSes and Desktops the user is most familiar with. I'd argue that because Windows is less customizeable than KDE, it's actually more consistent, and thus more "sane" for the average user. For the most part, I can sit down at anyone's windows box and things will work as expected. Linux boxes are a different story.
I'm a power user, and I like being able to customize. But I learned a long time ago, after using Win89/Win2k/KDE1,2,3/Gnome1,2/Mac OS9,X and a few other desktops that "sane" behavior doesn't even exist. Some desktops are harder, some are easier, but the most relevant thing is what you are used to. Of course a desktop can be made ridiculously hard to use...I'm not arguing that. But I don't believe Windows is one of those desktops. I use it all the time for development, browsing, email, word processing, and it works fine. I'm aware of its limitations and I work around them...just like I do with KDE.
Back when SCO was claiming they were being DDoSed, many experts made claims that resulted in stories like the following:
The debate touches on more subjects than we could possibly cover here, but experts are claiming that SCO could have taken countless preventative measures to stop the attack affecting their services.
Groklaw had a bunch of "experts" claiming it was easily stopped, as well, and suggested it was faked by SCO.
The truth is, as people here have pointed out, that it really doesn't matter what preventative action you take; if your pipe is full, your pipe is full, even if you drop all the packets when they hit your routers.
You can't easily beat a bandwidth saturating attack.
I did read it (and several others); yes, I know the FX-55 is clocked higher (2.6GHz). I was writing to those who praised AMD for reaching 4000+ as if the model number actually meant something, when in reality the clock speed didn't change a bit. In fact, it's just an old, rebadged FX.
In any case, that AMD has reached 2.6GHz means little, as the number of FX-55s shipped is likely to be low. Its high price guarantees that this won't matter much, but it does raise the question of whether AMD has yields to supply a lot of 2.6GHz chips. If not, AMD having the fastest chip doesn't mean much, as most of us will be stuck at 2-2.2GHz for budget reasons.
Yes, AMD did release a 2.6GHz chip, but will it be as hard to find as the Geforce 6800 Ultra? Its only available as a high-end, "luxury" chip at this point. I think they are having trouble at the high clock rates just like Intel, but it remains to be seen. Intel released a 3.6 months ago, but it's been nearly impossible to find until recently.
By the way, I'm running an AMD64 3000+ (754), which is basically a 3200+ with a little less cache. Here's hoping AMD can make some fast 90nm 939s, because I personally doubt dual-core will add much speed to my games.
It's not 5% faster than the 3800+, basically. It's 1-3% faster, which isn't surprising, since it's clocked the same but just extra cache. It's more like a 3850+, if we are comparing it to the older AMD64s.
In any case, it's bullshit to say the ratings aren't meant to compare to Pentiums. That's exactly what they are for. If Intel didn't exist, AMD wouldn't use rating numbers. They use them to make their products sound competetive to Intel's. Yes, I know 3000+ does not mean "exactly as fast as a 3GHz P4, etc., but in reality the model numbers are intended to be used by stupid consumers for choosing their chip.
The rating numbers mean nothing to performance geeks. They are there purely for marketing.
We may, but not for a very long time, as they are dropping the speed down for dual core, probably. They ramped up to higher speeds than they should have, when they could have had the same performance with a lower clocked P3 derivative. Eventually they may get back up there, but the high clock rates are gone for a while, I think.
The 4000+ isn't clocked any higher than the 3800+, it's just got a bigger cache. It's basically an FX-53; in fact, that's exactly what it is, sans the name. It would seem AMD is plateauing as well, but perhaps 90nm will get them out of the jam later on.
However, this is a wise move by AMD even if the rating isn't justified (hint: the benchmarks say it's not). Intel will never have a 4GHz CPU, and idiots who don't understand performance will see the 4000+ and want it because it breaks the 4000 barrier. It could backfire, but probably not, because even though 4000+ isn't justified, it's still faster than any of Intel's chips on 90% of applications.
First of all, the price of Windows OS has little to do with the cost of licensing a kernel of a Unix OS.
1. Windows OS is much more than a kernel. It is a set of APIs, applications developed using those APIs, and a microkernel, among other things. It also has a huge host of drivers designed to work with that kernel, many of which were designed by Microsoft themselves.
2. The cost of licensing a kernel does not determine the price of the operating system that is based on it, although it is certainly a factor.
3. The price of Windows is based on what the market will pay, which is determined in large part by the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly, and people are forced to buy their product. Additionally, the large majority of software works only on Windows. This artificially raises the price of the OS, meaning that other OSes might be priced similarly if the software support were there.
BSD based kernels allow one to do most of the same things that the Linux kernel does. The Windows kernel's design dictates that similar software will not easily be ported from *nix, a problem the BSD kernels do not have. There are GNU distros being developed on BSD kernels:
Based on this, and based on the fact that almost all opensource software that runs on Linux runs on FreeBSD, I'd say the market values of the kernels are pretty damn comparable. Your Windows example, however, isn't.
Considering the several free kernels (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD to give a few) of comparable (or superior, some would say) design, performance, and extensibility, which can be used in any commercial product you like, I'd say the market is very weak. When comparable products sell for $0, your product isn't worth (read: market value) much more than that.
-Dan
"Copyright theft"? Never heard of that, but it seems it would mean, "stealing a copyright." If indeed this is common usage, it's quite a poor choice of words. "Copyright infringment" seems perfectly fine and describes what is going on here. It is also illegal. So why should we call it theft? Isn't it worth distinguishing between duplicating something against the law, and taking from someone what they own (against the law, too)?
It hurts a lot more to see my CDs stolen from my car than to know that someone copied my software without copying it. Why? Because the second has not taken anything from me I already had. Sure, it's illegal, and sure, it annoys me, but at least I still have all my property.
Since when is copying software "taking" it? If it's still there when you're done, did you "take" it? "Take" and "steal" both have the same problem; they refer to removing something from another location, not duplicating it.
-Dan
...but I think it should be modded up insightful. Unless these guys did something amazing, 80% just to emulate the hardware doesn't seem too far-fetched, on today's processors.
-Dan
COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
It seems to me that someone who makes voting software shouldn't be promising to deliver votes, but maybe it's just me.
Plain and simple, there is no way XP is "1000 times as stable" as Win2k. It's not even *more* stable than win2k. I have been using Win2k for a very long time, and I am still waiting for XP to be good enough to switch. There are a few features of XP that I'd like to use, but I'm not willing to give up the stability of my 2000 box.
Now, upon what are you basing the assertion that XP is 1000 more stable than Win2K? My understanding is that both have a similar kernel design / driver interface. In fact, many Win2K drivers work fine on XP and vice-versa. It seems probable that Win2K is actually *more* stable, since it has had longer to mature and has had more service packs. Granted, most of those fixes have probably gone into XP, too, but the newer features of XP may not be as clean.
I have to agree with you about drivers in general, however. They are pretty much the only thing that has ever caused me problems with Win2k / XP. The one thing about XP that seems worse is its scheduler, which seems to lock up the system occasionally for about 5-10 seconds while using explorer.
Maybe you meant 2000/XP are 1000 times more stable than Me/98? Because that makes a great deal of sense. 2000 has never been considered an unstable OS, IMO, by those who know how to use it. XP simply continues the tradition, although I think it has dropped back a bit.
I include the second time to see how much caching helps, but this has been typical for me since the first OpenOffice. It takes a bloody long time to start.
I don't know what the latest OpenOffice is; perhaps it has sped up quite a bit. But I'm using Word 2000, and I know OpenOffice 1.1.2 is newer than that.
Half Life was a fairly rig-intensive game when it first came out, and CS was in fact even heavier on systems. In some cases, playing CS required special tweaking, if your computer didn't have enough memory:
CS uses more RAM than HL and TFC, so those with 32megs of RAM are having problems. In your command line, set -heapsize 32000 -- or try other values, smaller or larger -- depending how much RAM you have. (from counter-strike.net)
The reason CS is popular is because it is a great team mod with an appropriate reward system for playing well ($$$), and takes away some of the repetetive running and gunning that results when you respawn constantly. Also, it was based on an engine that was made very popular by HL, so a lot of people were able to start playing without buying a new game.
Years later, CS is still popular, despite it's aging graphics and hardly updated gameplay. Yes, now anyone with half-way decent hardware can play it, and that may add to its popularity, but that is not the source of it. It was something new, and the rest of the gaming world has yet to come up with something that seriously challenges it in terms of mass appeal.
I didn't think, after playing CS since the first betas (I quit playing after 1.4, as it had been too many years of the same game!), that I'd ever find fast-paced quake/unreal based game fun again. I was wrong, though--Onslaught is very fun.
Because, the JAR itself represents an entire directory (or more) of class files. It is not one lib, it is many, packaged in a convenient format that saves space and makes them easier to move around. There is no reason they couldn't have implemented it how you want, but keep in mind that every jar in that directory would have to be unzipped every time something wanted to use that classpath.
Your idea could be extended to saying "there should be a way to include a dir and every subdir for the c++ library path", and that would be essentially the same concept, except that the c++ dirs wouldn't be nicely packaged.
In spite of these points, I actually agree with you; the way jars are used in practice means it's a PITA to set up a classpath with all the jars you end up needing. Being able to include several jars simultaneously with one dir would be welcome.
-Dan
This was a 64 bit test, and we really don't know how cache sizes affect 64-bit operations yet, in real world tests. Since they compared the slowest dual-memory 64, with the smallest cache, against the fastest 64-bit Xeon, with a bigger cache, I think these benchmarks may be valid. They just shouldn't have been placed together and alone on one graph.
Slashdot Mirror
Another Poll
-Dan
These are important statistics, which I had read before. I'm not sure exactly what they mean, though. If we measure popularity purely in terms of cards sold, I'd say Nvidia is the more popular at the high end. I almost bought Nvidia this time because I couldn't find the ATI card I wanted (finally found it, though). I considered a 6800GT because of it's price/performance over the X800XT, as well. Also, I think Nvidia has more variety in the high-end, while neither Nvidia nor ATI have sold many of the very highest-end.
However, and I think this is a significant point, ATI's marketing/business strategy has become one of using the high-end to drive sales at the low-end (nvidia probably isn't much different). For example, if I'm a casual gamer, maybe I read all the benchmarks and see ATI wins all the DX9 ones (with the X800 XT PE). Then I realize that card costs $800, and buy a $200 ATI board, without realizing the 9600xyz actually sucks compared to the 6600abc (these are contrived examples). So sales at the low-end, which I believe ATI won (so handily, in fact, to win in overall units sold), may actually be significant in determining what high end cards are preferred by gamers.
Finally, we have yet to see how the 6800/X800s really stack up against each other in sales, as most of the top models are still barely available! This really disgusts me, by the way, although I did get mine.
So, although I admit I'm just hazarding guesses and nitpicking at statistics, I do think it's significant that ATI, who previously sold less than Nvidia in all segments, is now selling more boards. It is also significant that Nvidia sold more high end boards. What these things signify is hard to say, with all the variables involved. But I don't think one can conclusively say that Nvidia is still the preferred card. If nothing else, you must admit Nvidia has lost a great deal of ground in the last year.
-Dan
They just are gamers who typically bought their hardware a long time ago, back when Nvidia was king (Most people who play half-life have older hardware, in my experience). Most of them would probably buy ATI if they bought today. That's just a guess, of course, but I bet it's true. Why? Because I, and all my friends, bought ATI for our upgrades this year for the current host of games out there.
By the way, I loved HL/CS, and I played it for years on my Geforce3. But this time, a Radeon X800 XT made more sense for me. Single slot, fairly quiet, and very fast. Those were my criteria (and being ~$500 or less).
Most people on gaming forums are tilting ATI right now, I'd say, even those that have Nvidia. I personally will buy whatever seems the best at any given time, but I'd have to say that right now, I (and most people I know) "like" ATI better (we'd prefer the latest ATI cards over the latest Nvidia ones).
-Dan
I use KDE (posting from KDE on FreeBSD, actually) and Windows extensively. Your response reeks of the same sort of bias you're complaining about.
> Using Windows is an exercise in frustration for me
That's a fair statement, but it doesn't mean Windows is unuseable or inherently frustrating. It just means that you personally are uncomfortable with it. I would guess you don't use it much, if you are that frustrated with it, because the behavior is very consistent and predictable. Yes, there are quirks, but after using Win2k for several years, I'm aware of the majority of them...and guess what? I'm pretty happy with how Windows works.
> not being able to change it to some sane
> behaviour is even worse
Windows can be tweaked quite a bit, although not nearly as much as KDE/Gnome desktops. However, "sane behaviour" is completely in the mind of the user. As far as I'm concerned, Windows behavior is completely "sane." It may not be the most efficient, or what I'd prefer, but it makes sense once you understand it. A lot of people believe that mouse/keyboard is a horrible interface design, but once you understand how it works, it seems "sane." I imagine the same is true of whatever desktop you use.
KDE's desktop is fine, although it does have some quirks that I find annoying. For example, I like to click on icons, then use "delete" or "F2" to rename, etc. But clicking on the icon once launches it, so I end up using the right-click+ rename or something similar. Is this "sane" behavior? Yes, but it is annoying when you aren't used to it. The same is true of many Windows quirks.
"Sane behavior" is in the mind of the user, which is largely shaped by which OSes and Desktops the user is most familiar with. I'd argue that because Windows is less customizeable than KDE, it's actually more consistent, and thus more "sane" for the average user. For the most part, I can sit down at anyone's windows box and things will work as expected. Linux boxes are a different story.
I'm a power user, and I like being able to customize. But I learned a long time ago, after using Win89/Win2k/KDE1,2,3/Gnome1,2/Mac OS9,X and a few other desktops that "sane" behavior doesn't even exist. Some desktops are harder, some are easier, but the most relevant thing is what you are used to. Of course a desktop can be made ridiculously hard to use...I'm not arguing that. But I don't believe Windows is one of those desktops. I use it all the time for development, browsing, email, word processing, and it works fine. I'm aware of its limitations and I work around them...just like I do with KDE.
-Dan
Back when SCO was claiming they were being DDoSed, many experts made claims that resulted in stories like the following:
The debate touches on more subjects than we could possibly cover here, but experts are claiming that SCO could have taken countless preventative measures to stop the attack affecting their services.
(see here)
Groklaw had a bunch of "experts" claiming it was easily stopped, as well, and suggested it was faked by SCO.
The truth is, as people here have pointed out, that it really doesn't matter what preventative action you take; if your pipe is full, your pipe is full, even if you drop all the packets when they hit your routers.
You can't easily beat a bandwidth saturating attack.
-Dan
I did read it (and several others); yes, I know the FX-55 is clocked higher (2.6GHz). I was writing to those who praised AMD for reaching 4000+ as if the model number actually meant something, when in reality the clock speed didn't change a bit. In fact, it's just an old, rebadged FX.
In any case, that AMD has reached 2.6GHz means little, as the number of FX-55s shipped is likely to be low. Its high price guarantees that this won't matter much, but it does raise the question of whether AMD has yields to supply a lot of 2.6GHz chips. If not, AMD having the fastest chip doesn't mean much, as most of us will be stuck at 2-2.2GHz for budget reasons.
Yes, AMD did release a 2.6GHz chip, but will it be as hard to find as the Geforce 6800 Ultra? Its only available as a high-end, "luxury" chip at this point. I think they are having trouble at the high clock rates just like Intel, but it remains to be seen. Intel released a 3.6 months ago, but it's been nearly impossible to find until recently.
By the way, I'm running an AMD64 3000+ (754), which is basically a 3200+ with a little less cache. Here's hoping AMD can make some fast 90nm 939s, because I personally doubt dual-core will add much speed to my games.
-Dan
It's not 5% faster than the 3800+, basically. It's 1-3% faster, which isn't surprising, since it's clocked the same but just extra cache. It's more like a 3850+, if we are comparing it to the older AMD64s.
In any case, it's bullshit to say the ratings aren't meant to compare to Pentiums. That's exactly what they are for. If Intel didn't exist, AMD wouldn't use rating numbers. They use them to make their products sound competetive to Intel's. Yes, I know 3000+ does not mean "exactly as fast as a 3GHz P4, etc., but in reality the model numbers are intended to be used by stupid consumers for choosing their chip.
The rating numbers mean nothing to performance geeks. They are there purely for marketing.
-Dan
We may, but not for a very long time, as they are dropping the speed down for dual core, probably. They ramped up to higher speeds than they should have, when they could have had the same performance with a lower clocked P3 derivative. Eventually they may get back up there, but the high clock rates are gone for a while, I think.
-Dan
The 4000+ isn't clocked any higher than the 3800+, it's just got a bigger cache. It's basically an FX-53; in fact, that's exactly what it is, sans the name. It would seem AMD is plateauing as well, but perhaps 90nm will get them out of the jam later on.
However, this is a wise move by AMD even if the rating isn't justified (hint: the benchmarks say it's not). Intel will never have a 4GHz CPU, and idiots who don't understand performance will see the 4000+ and want it because it breaks the 4000 barrier. It could backfire, but probably not, because even though 4000+ isn't justified, it's still faster than any of Intel's chips on 90% of applications.
-Dan
First of all, the price of Windows OS has little to do with the cost of licensing a kernel of a Unix OS.
1. Windows OS is much more than a kernel. It is a set of APIs, applications developed using those APIs, and a microkernel, among other things. It also has a huge host of drivers designed to work with that kernel, many of which were designed by Microsoft themselves.
2. The cost of licensing a kernel does not determine the price of the operating system that is based on it, although it is certainly a factor.
3. The price of Windows is based on what the market will pay, which is determined in large part by the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly, and people are forced to buy their product. Additionally, the large majority of software works only on Windows. This artificially raises the price of the OS, meaning that other OSes might be priced similarly if the software support were there.
BSD based kernels allow one to do most of the same things that the Linux kernel does. The Windows kernel's design dictates that similar software will not easily be ported from *nix, a problem the BSD kernels do not have. There are GNU distros being developed on BSD kernels:
Debian FreeBSD
NetBSD
Based on this, and based on the fact that almost all opensource software that runs on Linux runs on FreeBSD, I'd say the market values of the kernels are pretty damn comparable. Your Windows example, however, isn't.
-Dan
Considering the several free kernels (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD to give a few) of comparable (or superior, some would say) design, performance, and extensibility, which can be used in any commercial product you like, I'd say the market is very weak. When comparable products sell for $0, your product isn't worth (read: market value) much more than that. -Dan
"copied my software without my permission," I mean.
"Copyright theft"? Never heard of that, but it seems it would mean, "stealing a copyright." If indeed this is common usage, it's quite a poor choice of words. "Copyright infringment" seems perfectly fine and describes what is going on here. It is also illegal. So why should we call it theft? Isn't it worth distinguishing between duplicating something against the law, and taking from someone what they own (against the law, too)?
It hurts a lot more to see my CDs stolen from my car than to know that someone copied my software without copying it. Why? Because the second has not taken anything from me I already had. Sure, it's illegal, and sure, it annoys me, but at least I still have all my property.
-Dan
Since when is copying software "taking" it? If it's still there when you're done, did you "take" it? "Take" and "steal" both have the same problem; they refer to removing something from another location, not duplicating it. -Dan
...but I think it should be modded up insightful. Unless these guys did something amazing, 80% just to emulate the hardware doesn't seem too far-fetched, on today's processors. -Dan
Read This
COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
It seems to me that someone who makes voting software shouldn't be promising to deliver votes, but maybe it's just me.
-Dan
I think it would have to be R--, since R comes before S, not after. -Dan
Plain and simple, there is no way XP is "1000 times as stable" as Win2k. It's not even *more* stable than win2k. I have been using Win2k for a very long time, and I am still waiting for XP to be good enough to switch. There are a few features of XP that I'd like to use, but I'm not willing to give up the stability of my 2000 box.
Now, upon what are you basing the assertion that XP is 1000 more stable than Win2K? My understanding is that both have a similar kernel design / driver interface. In fact, many Win2K drivers work fine on XP and vice-versa. It seems probable that Win2K is actually *more* stable, since it has had longer to mature and has had more service packs. Granted, most of those fixes have probably gone into XP, too, but the newer features of XP may not be as clean.
I have to agree with you about drivers in general, however. They are pretty much the only thing that has ever caused me problems with Win2k / XP. The one thing about XP that seems worse is its scheduler, which seems to lock up the system occasionally for about 5-10 seconds while using explorer.
Maybe you meant 2000/XP are 1000 times more stable than Me/98? Because that makes a great deal of sense. 2000 has never been considered an unstable OS, IMO, by those who know how to use it. XP simply continues the tradition, although I think it has dropped back a bit.
-Dan
P3 700, Win2k SP4:
Word 2000: 2 seconds (first time)
Word 2000: 0 seconds (second time) It literally just pops up...something OpenOffice has never done for me.
OpenOffice 1.1.2: 16 seconds (first time)
OpenOffice 1.1.2: 3 seconds (second time)
I include the second time to see how much caching helps, but this has been typical for me since the first OpenOffice. It takes a bloody long time to start.
I don't know what the latest OpenOffice is; perhaps it has sped up quite a bit. But I'm using Word 2000, and I know OpenOffice 1.1.2 is newer than that.
-Dan
Half Life was a fairly rig-intensive game when it first came out, and CS was in fact even heavier on systems. In some cases, playing CS required special tweaking, if your computer didn't have enough memory:
CS uses more RAM than HL and TFC, so those with 32megs of RAM are having problems. In your command line, set -heapsize 32000 -- or try other values, smaller or larger -- depending how much RAM you have. (from counter-strike.net) The reason CS is popular is because it is a great team mod with an appropriate reward system for playing well ($$$), and takes away some of the repetetive running and gunning that results when you respawn constantly. Also, it was based on an engine that was made very popular by HL, so a lot of people were able to start playing without buying a new game.
Years later, CS is still popular, despite it's aging graphics and hardly updated gameplay. Yes, now anyone with half-way decent hardware can play it, and that may add to its popularity, but that is not the source of it. It was something new, and the rest of the gaming world has yet to come up with something that seriously challenges it in terms of mass appeal.
I didn't think, after playing CS since the first betas (I quit playing after 1.4, as it had been too many years of the same game!), that I'd ever find fast-paced quake/unreal based game fun again. I was wrong, though--Onslaught is very fun.
-Dan
Because, the JAR itself represents an entire directory (or more) of class files. It is not one lib, it is many, packaged in a convenient format that saves space and makes them easier to move around. There is no reason they couldn't have implemented it how you want, but keep in mind that every jar in that directory would have to be unzipped every time something wanted to use that classpath. Your idea could be extended to saying "there should be a way to include a dir and every subdir for the c++ library path", and that would be essentially the same concept, except that the c++ dirs wouldn't be nicely packaged. In spite of these points, I actually agree with you; the way jars are used in practice means it's a PITA to set up a classpath with all the jars you end up needing. Being able to include several jars simultaneously with one dir would be welcome. -Dan
You're right, I meant L2 cache.
-Dan
This was a 64 bit test, and we really don't know how cache sizes affect 64-bit operations yet, in real world tests. Since they compared the slowest dual-memory 64, with the smallest cache, against the fastest 64-bit Xeon, with a bigger cache, I think these benchmarks may be valid. They just shouldn't have been placed together and alone on one graph.
-Dan
err, slowest of the socket 939s that is.
Xeon = 3.6 GHz, A64 = PR 3500
Xeon = Server, A64 = desktop
Xeon = L3 cache 1MB, A64 = L3 Cache 512K
Xeon = $??? (probably > 800 when available), A64 = $345 (pricewatch)
Xeon = fastest of Intel's 64-bit chips, A64 = slowest of AMD's 64-bit chips
Anandtech = sold down the river? What the hell?