Well, if the GPU becomes saturated, I could imagine the rest of the load spilling over to the CPU (one or many cores). Obviously the GPU is more efficient at video tasks, but if the video task is priority for the user, why not offload to the CPU as well? Makes sense to me.
If you do that for a benchmark app then you are not really testing (just) the performance of the graphics hardware, so turning on that optimization without disclosing it is probably not really a fair comparison of the hardware. To make it 'fair' you really need to make the benchmark app to be aware of the feature and be able to turn it on or off under software control, or at least know if it is enabled or not. I wonder if similar optimisations could be made to any 3D video driver...
In the real world, if the user wants high graphics performance and there are CPU cores doing nothing then like you said, offloading to them makes perfect sense.
It's only half unfair though. In optimized games like Crysis, Call of Juarez, etc., they get a boost just like 3DMark Vantage shows. In other words, 3DMark's performance is indicative of how those games will perform. However, in any game not specifically mentioned in the drivers, the 3DMark results don't match up with actual games' performance.
As most people have stated, it would be much better if they could do this based on actual performance statistics, rather than just based on the filename. The flip side is that you might be able to get more performance out of other games by simply renaming their files to match one of the listed games, or by adding your game's executable to the list.
Just to clarify, I expect Adobe to put much more into this effort than they put into x64. Whereas there's no real gain from going to x64 for the browser (and therefore not much push from consumers to have x64 Flash), Adobe has a lot to gain by pushing Flash on as many devices as possible before HTML5 and/or Silverlight take hold. Admittedly, the only reason I want x64 Flash is so that I can use a 64-bit browser, just because it's one less 32-bit app running - I don't expect any noticeable difference by switching to 64-bit. Ubiquitous mobile Flash, on the other hand, stands to lock Adobe into a very large market. This stands to lead to lots of profit for them, and therefore I believe they will expend much more effort on this.
People have been complaining about the lack of 64-bit Flash for four years now. If Adobe develops this plan with just as much passion as they had for x64, it'll be 10 years before we have to worry about it.
The new drivers (beyond 185.xx) use a new type of installer as well, which isn't as compatible with slipstreaming into XP CDs. That was my big annoyance.
People use the driver installers? Just unzip them and point Windows at the.inf file...
'If continuously faced with the specter of having to implement and support clearly inferior products due to baffling, uneducated management decisions, top-flight admins will simply head elsewhere.'
Yeah, because the job market is just that good right now.
If you are "top-flight" the market has no control over you. Your job security is your knowledge and skills, not the salary you get every month.
Your knowledge and skills don't magically create food or pay your bills. If you choose to walk out on your current job (due to their utter stupidity or any other reason), you don't need job security, you need to get hired elsewhere. Your top-flight knowledge and skills may let you find a new job sooner than a fresh grad would, but I highly doubt there are many admins out there who can simply walk out of their current job and immediately into another one of their choosing in today's economy.
I'm now running version 5.2.3790.4573 of tcpip.sys, and TCP/IP appears to be working for me... You may be able to simply copy the DLLs over in x86 as well (possibly in Safe Mode or with a BartPE CD) if the actual installer won't do it.
There are issues with security and governmental banking regulations that will not allow windows 7.
Care to elaborate? I work in IT at a bank and we're currently in the process of testing out Win7. I don't work directly in the Compliance department obviously, but I've not heard anything even remotely like this mentioned.
Here's more ammo - Microsoft offers a fix for Windows Server 2003 which is based on many of the same core components as Windows XP.
I noticed this as well, specifically on x64. From everything I've read, XP x64 is essentially 2003 x64 with some branding and defaults changed - even closer than the x86 variants of XP and 2003.
The 2003 x64 download is actually named WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP-KB967723-x64-ENU.exe, and appears to have installed just fine. I haven't rebooted yet, but I don't expect any issues based on what I've seen so far.
I think when I finally get back to work (probably January when managers get new budgets and fresh money), I'm going to refuse to pay the Unemployment. Why should I pay for a program that doesn't help me out when I need it?
In Michigan at least, employees don't pay for unemployment insurance, the employers do. Yes, in the end, everything comes out of our pockets in some way (i.e. they could pay you higher wages if they didn't have to pay for your unemployment insurance). However, you don't pay x% of your paycheck every week into Unemployment.
I went over the details one thing I am confused about is in this situation is the internal or External IP of the router that is Key here?
If you have remote (Internet) management enabled, an attacker can simply run the command remotely against your router. If you do not have remote management enabled (the default), then the attacker needs to get you to run the command from your LAN by embedding the command into a webpage which you would browse to. That would be the <A HREF="http://192.168.0.1/webmanagementinterface/ownyourfrakkingrouter.pl">Hey, since you're inside your network and able to access the web interface directly, why don't you click on this for me?</a> example from above.
Changing your router's IP just breaks that one link. However, there are a number of ways to find your router's IP, or simply brute force it and include a bunch of links to common IPs. Changing your IP from 192.168.0.1 will give you a little more security, as it's one less "default" setting, but you're still 100% vulnerable to the actual issue. Using something other than 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x for your network is one step. The next step would be not using x.x.x.1 for your router. 192.168.42.69 is less likely to be exploited than 192.168.42.1, which is in turn less likely to be exploited than 192.168.0.1. The downside is that changing IPs does also make it a bit less intuitive to manage your own LAN.
1. If people not only updated the firmware on their router, but had to do hacks to get it on there, don't you think they're probably at least a tad more likely to keep the firmware up to date than Joe Blammo with the factory firmware installed?
I tend to not update DD-WRT on my routers all that frequently, because they just work. I do occasionally check for new versions and update as appropriate (as with most of my other apps, drivers, etc. as well). But when you're not constantly having problems with something, it's a lot easier to forget it's even there. You tend to check for Linksys firmware updates when your router locks up every few days, but months of uptime generally don't make you run out and try to find something new.
I'm assuming you want something scriptable, but as a regular GUI replacement for Windows' file copy stuff, TeraCopy (http://www.codesector.com/teracopy.php) is quite nice. It's sort of like a GUI version of Robocopy.
FYI, the 32-bit version integrates perfectly with the Windows shell, but the 64-bit version's integration was a complete pile the last time I tried it (a while ago). It didn't work automatically after the installation, and even the manual integration instructions didn't get it working. TeraCopy is much less useful when you specifically have to open the app and select the source and destination to start the copy.
I take anything Steve Gibson says with a grain of salt, but SecurAble is one of the simplest ways to see if your Windows PC supports hardware virtualization.
The problem isn't that you can't open a Word 2007 ODF document in another ODF compliant program, it's that it refuses to open to other program's ODF documents.
If you actually read the article, you'll find that Google, KSpread, Symphony, OpenOffice, and the Sun plugin are all unable to open documents created in Excel 2007. The issue here is not that it's one way, it's that the MS interpretation is different from what everyone else uses (though the actual specification leaves it open). And it's also about spreadsheets (Excel), not word-processor documents (Word).
It works the other way too. MS Office is now able to share documents flawlessly with other suites. While most people think this is a win for FOSS, it can be a win for MS too. Picture a small organization that can't afford MS Office. Regardless of anything else, they are not using MS Office. MS Office supporting ODF allows them to interact with this organization's OpenOffice (or whatever alternative suite they use) ODF files. Yes, this is not the most common situation, but it does happen. In some cases, MS supporting ODF will actually be an advantage for MS.
As AC said, it's more that MS is giving up their proprietary format advantage, than ODF providing an advantage for others. ODF is a level playing field. MS proprietary formats are advantageous to MS for lock-in reasons, and supporting ODF well may negatively impact that.
From that post: It's with great sadness that have to announce the passing of a good friend and our EasyList author, Rick752. Rick had suffered a stroke on St Patrick' Day, and I was just informed that Rick had passed away last evening. During this short period, while hospitalized, Rick had his family very close by his side. There was some able communication and awareness between Rick and his family before his passing and although given this short period to "prepare" for the inevitable, this news (as with any of this type) is still quite shocking and difficult to accept.
VerifyURL is a simple Firefox addon that puts a "location.hostname" bookmarklet into the browser UI. I started it when the exploit came up where the whole Fx UI was spoofed and I couldn't get to my bookmarklet (since the bookmarks menu was a spoofed fake). After I made VerifyURL, SpoofStick's interface got a lot better, and I actually installed that for my parents instead (just set to show the hostname in one of the UI bars). It's similar to the latest versions showing the domain name for secure sites, but this was always there. The act of showing it doesn't inherently make anything more secure, but it provides a visible clarification of the URL for non-geeks. Locationbar, linked by Henry Pate, seems to be the same sort of thing, done right in the address bar.
I'd like to see a "real" hostname spoofing a valid URL with unicode "slashes", to see how well VerifyURL handles it. It does work on the IDN spoofs.
Quite a few of the i7 920's (2.66GHz) are hitting 4GHz on air. A very large number (most?) are getting to 3.8GHz.
I put together an i7 system earlier this month (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1121769&cid=26794093). EVGA X58 motherboard and 6GB of DDR3-1866 for $370 - $30MIR. i7 920 from Microcenter for $230. I'm not sure $570 is really "very expensive" compared to AMD alternatives. It's more, but it's not a huge amount when you compare apples to apples (i.e. not comparing budget-bin AM2+ motherboards to the feature-packed X58 boards). Also, the the Dell is only AM2+ - AM3 systems also are DDR3-only (removing the disparity in RAM from the price comparison).
I still stand by my view that if you already have a good AM2+ or LGA775 system, one of those new CPUs can provide a nice, inexpensive upgrade. If you're building a new system, then AM2 and 775 are old parts that are already on their way out. You can save a little bit if you have a strict budget, lower requirements, or no plans to upgrade. However, an i7 will be a better overall value due to the extra performance and the increased likelihood of future upgradability.
As all the benchmarks in the review show, the Phenom II was designed to compete with the C2Q, and it does that pretty well. The i7 does cost more, but also beats it (even when overclocked) by a pretty good amount overall.
The i7 system will definitely cost more, as there aren't really any budget X58 motherboards and the CPUs and DDR3 are still brand-new, top-of-the-line parts (and thus get a price premium). However, I just got an EVGA tri-SLI board, i7 920, and 6GB of DDR3-1866 for $570 + S&H. Yes, that's quite a bit more than your total, but your listed system is actually below my 18 month old system. In my eyes, it's really apples and oranges.
If you can make use of the extra processing power, then I think $570 for an i7 system isn't all that outrageous compared to $260 for the board and CPU you listed, with 6GB of the listed DDR2. For comparison, I paid $575 for the core parts of that system 18 months ago - nF590 SLI board, X2 6000+, 2x1GB DDR2, and 8600GT video card.
If the X2 is good enough for what you want to do though, that's a few hundred bucks you're saving. No sense in buying apples if oranges are acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if the GPU becomes saturated, I could imagine the rest of the load spilling over to the CPU (one or many cores). Obviously the GPU is more efficient at video tasks, but if the video task is priority for the user, why not offload to the CPU as well? Makes sense to me.
If you do that for a benchmark app then you are not really testing (just) the performance of the graphics hardware, so turning on that optimization without disclosing it is probably not really a fair comparison of the hardware. To make it 'fair' you really need to make the benchmark app to be aware of the feature and be able to turn it on or off under software control, or at least know if it is enabled or not. I wonder if similar optimisations could be made to any 3D video driver...
In the real world, if the user wants high graphics performance and there are CPU cores doing nothing then like you said, offloading to them makes perfect sense.
It's only half unfair though. In optimized games like Crysis, Call of Juarez, etc., they get a boost just like 3DMark Vantage shows. In other words, 3DMark's performance is indicative of how those games will perform. However, in any game not specifically mentioned in the drivers, the 3DMark results don't match up with actual games' performance.
As most people have stated, it would be much better if they could do this based on actual performance statistics, rather than just based on the filename. The flip side is that you might be able to get more performance out of other games by simply renaming their files to match one of the listed games, or by adding your game's executable to the list.
Hell freezes over annually.
Hell, MI does as well.
Just to clarify, I expect Adobe to put much more into this effort than they put into x64. Whereas there's no real gain from going to x64 for the browser (and therefore not much push from consumers to have x64 Flash), Adobe has a lot to gain by pushing Flash on as many devices as possible before HTML5 and/or Silverlight take hold. Admittedly, the only reason I want x64 Flash is so that I can use a 64-bit browser, just because it's one less 32-bit app running - I don't expect any noticeable difference by switching to 64-bit. Ubiquitous mobile Flash, on the other hand, stands to lock Adobe into a very large market. This stands to lead to lots of profit for them, and therefore I believe they will expend much more effort on this.
People have been complaining about the lack of 64-bit Flash for four years now. If Adobe develops this plan with just as much passion as they had for x64, it'll be 10 years before we have to worry about it.
The new drivers (beyond 185.xx) use a new type of installer as well, which isn't as compatible with slipstreaming into XP CDs. That was my big annoyance.
People use the driver installers? Just unzip them and point Windows at the .inf file...
'If continuously faced with the specter of having to implement and support clearly inferior products due to baffling, uneducated management decisions, top-flight admins will simply head elsewhere.'
Yeah, because the job market is just that good right now.
If you are "top-flight" the market has no control over you. Your job security is your knowledge and skills, not the salary you get every month.
Your knowledge and skills don't magically create food or pay your bills. If you choose to walk out on your current job (due to their utter stupidity or any other reason), you don't need job security, you need to get hired elsewhere. Your top-flight knowledge and skills may let you find a new job sooner than a fresh grad would, but I highly doubt there are many admins out there who can simply walk out of their current job and immediately into another one of their choosing in today's economy.
I'm now running version 5.2.3790.4573 of tcpip.sys, and TCP/IP appears to be working for me... You may be able to simply copy the DLLs over in x86 as well (possibly in Safe Mode or with a BartPE CD) if the actual installer won't do it.
There are issues with security and governmental banking regulations that will not allow windows 7.
Care to elaborate? I work in IT at a bank and we're currently in the process of testing out Win7. I don't work directly in the Compliance department obviously, but I've not heard anything even remotely like this mentioned.
Here's more ammo - Microsoft offers a fix for Windows Server 2003 which is based on many of the same core components as Windows XP.
I noticed this as well, specifically on x64. From everything I've read, XP x64 is essentially 2003 x64 with some branding and defaults changed - even closer than the x86 variants of XP and 2003.
The 2003 x64 download is actually named WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP-KB967723-x64-ENU.exe, and appears to have installed just fine. I haven't rebooted yet, but I don't expect any issues based on what I've seen so far.
I think when I finally get back to work (probably January when managers get new budgets and fresh money), I'm going to refuse to pay the Unemployment. Why should I pay for a program that doesn't help me out when I need it?
In Michigan at least, employees don't pay for unemployment insurance, the employers do. Yes, in the end, everything comes out of our pockets in some way (i.e. they could pay you higher wages if they didn't have to pay for your unemployment insurance). However, you don't pay x% of your paycheck every week into Unemployment.
I went over the details one thing I am confused about is in this situation is the internal or External IP of the router that is Key here?
If you have remote (Internet) management enabled, an attacker can simply run the command remotely against your router. If you do not have remote management enabled (the default), then the attacker needs to get you to run the command from your LAN by embedding the command into a webpage which you would browse to. That would be the <A HREF="http://192.168.0.1/webmanagementinterface/ownyourfrakkingrouter.pl">Hey, since you're inside your network and able to access the web interface directly, why don't you click on this for me?</a> example from above.
Changing your router's IP just breaks that one link. However, there are a number of ways to find your router's IP, or simply brute force it and include a bunch of links to common IPs. Changing your IP from 192.168.0.1 will give you a little more security, as it's one less "default" setting, but you're still 100% vulnerable to the actual issue. Using something other than 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x for your network is one step. The next step would be not using x.x.x.1 for your router. 192.168.42.69 is less likely to be exploited than 192.168.42.1, which is in turn less likely to be exploited than 192.168.0.1. The downside is that changing IPs does also make it a bit less intuitive to manage your own LAN.
1. If people not only updated the firmware on their router, but had to do hacks to get it on there, don't you think they're probably at least a tad more likely to keep the firmware up to date than Joe Blammo with the factory firmware installed?
I tend to not update DD-WRT on my routers all that frequently, because they just work. I do occasionally check for new versions and update as appropriate (as with most of my other apps, drivers, etc. as well). But when you're not constantly having problems with something, it's a lot easier to forget it's even there. You tend to check for Linksys firmware updates when your router locks up every few days, but months of uptime generally don't make you run out and try to find something new.
I'm assuming you want something scriptable, but as a regular GUI replacement for Windows' file copy stuff, TeraCopy (http://www.codesector.com/teracopy.php) is quite nice. It's sort of like a GUI version of Robocopy.
FYI, the 32-bit version integrates perfectly with the Windows shell, but the 64-bit version's integration was a complete pile the last time I tried it (a while ago). It didn't work automatically after the installation, and even the manual integration instructions didn't get it working. TeraCopy is much less useful when you specifically have to open the app and select the source and destination to start the copy.
I take anything Steve Gibson says with a grain of salt, but SecurAble is one of the simplest ways to see if your Windows PC supports hardware virtualization.
The problem isn't that you can't open a Word 2007 ODF document in another ODF compliant program, it's that it refuses to open to other program's ODF documents.
If you actually read the article, you'll find that Google, KSpread, Symphony, OpenOffice, and the Sun plugin are all unable to open documents created in Excel 2007. The issue here is not that it's one way, it's that the MS interpretation is different from what everyone else uses (though the actual specification leaves it open). And it's also about spreadsheets (Excel), not word-processor documents (Word).
Not any ODF files, ODF spreadsheet files.
It works the other way too. MS Office is now able to share documents flawlessly with other suites. While most people think this is a win for FOSS, it can be a win for MS too. Picture a small organization that can't afford MS Office. Regardless of anything else, they are not using MS Office. MS Office supporting ODF allows them to interact with this organization's OpenOffice (or whatever alternative suite they use) ODF files. Yes, this is not the most common situation, but it does happen. In some cases, MS supporting ODF will actually be an advantage for MS.
As AC said, it's more that MS is giving up their proprietary format advantage, than ODF providing an advantage for others. ODF is a level playing field. MS proprietary formats are advantageous to MS for lock-in reasons, and supporting ODF well may negatively impact that.
If you RTFA (yeah, yeah, I know...), the problem is with spreadsheet formulas.
Bah, I see The Slip there now when I click on Artist - NIN, but it doesn't bring up any songs in the results when you search for "Nine Inch Nails"...
Trent didn't release the last album on iTunes. Or the one before that.
"Behead" it. http://hackaday.com/2008/07/24/behead-your-laptop/
From that post:
It's with great sadness that have to announce the passing of a good friend and our EasyList author, Rick752. Rick had suffered a stroke on St Patrick' Day, and I was just informed that Rick had passed away last evening. During this short period, while hospitalized, Rick had his family very close by his side. There was some able communication and awareness between Rick and his family before his passing and although given this short period to "prepare" for the inevitable, this news (as with any of this type) is still quite shocking and difficult to accept.
Self-plug: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=110239
VerifyURL is a simple Firefox addon that puts a "location.hostname" bookmarklet into the browser UI. I started it when the exploit came up where the whole Fx UI was spoofed and I couldn't get to my bookmarklet (since the bookmarks menu was a spoofed fake). After I made VerifyURL, SpoofStick's interface got a lot better, and I actually installed that for my parents instead (just set to show the hostname in one of the UI bars). It's similar to the latest versions showing the domain name for secure sites, but this was always there. The act of showing it doesn't inherently make anything more secure, but it provides a visible clarification of the URL for non-geeks. Locationbar, linked by Henry Pate, seems to be the same sort of thing, done right in the address bar.
I'd like to see a "real" hostname spoofing a valid URL with unicode "slashes", to see how well VerifyURL handles it. It does work on the IDN spoofs.
Quite a few of the i7 920's (2.66GHz) are hitting 4GHz on air. A very large number (most?) are getting to 3.8GHz.
I put together an i7 system earlier this month (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1121769&cid=26794093). EVGA X58 motherboard and 6GB of DDR3-1866 for $370 - $30MIR. i7 920 from Microcenter for $230. I'm not sure $570 is really "very expensive" compared to AMD alternatives. It's more, but it's not a huge amount when you compare apples to apples (i.e. not comparing budget-bin AM2+ motherboards to the feature-packed X58 boards). Also, the the Dell is only AM2+ - AM3 systems also are DDR3-only (removing the disparity in RAM from the price comparison).
I still stand by my view that if you already have a good AM2+ or LGA775 system, one of those new CPUs can provide a nice, inexpensive upgrade. If you're building a new system, then AM2 and 775 are old parts that are already on their way out. You can save a little bit if you have a strict budget, lower requirements, or no plans to upgrade. However, an i7 will be a better overall value due to the extra performance and the increased likelihood of future upgradability.
As all the benchmarks in the review show, the Phenom II was designed to compete with the C2Q, and it does that pretty well. The i7 does cost more, but also beats it (even when overclocked) by a pretty good amount overall.
An i7 920 will crush an X2 5200+ in CPU-intensive tasks. http://www.guru3d.com/article/intel-core-i7-920-and-965-review/15 shows a software-based rendering benchmark. The i7's are up in the 11's and 12's, while my X2 6000+ was in the 4's.
The i7 system will definitely cost more, as there aren't really any budget X58 motherboards and the CPUs and DDR3 are still brand-new, top-of-the-line parts (and thus get a price premium). However, I just got an EVGA tri-SLI board, i7 920, and 6GB of DDR3-1866 for $570 + S&H. Yes, that's quite a bit more than your total, but your listed system is actually below my 18 month old system. In my eyes, it's really apples and oranges.
If you can make use of the extra processing power, then I think $570 for an i7 system isn't all that outrageous compared to $260 for the board and CPU you listed, with 6GB of the listed DDR2. For comparison, I paid $575 for the core parts of that system 18 months ago - nF590 SLI board, X2 6000+, 2x1GB DDR2, and 8600GT video card.
If the X2 is good enough for what you want to do though, that's a few hundred bucks you're saving. No sense in buying apples if oranges are acceptable.