For multitasking you also don't need Core i7, you know...
Prime95 is trivial to not notice even on old, singlecore CPUs. There's hardly any HDD i/o, which has the biggest potential of slowing you down if there's something happening in the background. There's basically just computation.
Not that long ago any cessation of breathing meant you were left to die.
BTW, there's data strongly suggesting that, regarding anoxic damage to the brain, how you keep it stable after damage and how you "wake it up" is at least as important as how it was "shut down".
Graphite would be also quite reactive at those pressures and temperatures, I guess. And do you know how possible are microorganisms producing diamond?
Venus will be hard, it has immense quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess enough to have oceans, if it could be liquified. And look at Earth, it's atmosphere isn't very reactive with its oceans; or not terribly reactive with any significant part of dry surface. But change water with hydrocarbons and...
Of course it does; the only serious burn in the vicinity of Earth (small slingshot from the Moon migh help too) and you're on a highly elliptical orbit intersecting Venus. Orbital mechanics means that your speed will be quite a bit high for Venus orbital insertion, but that's where considerable aerobraking comes in; which means you don't need so much fuel, the initial burn at the Earth might be smaller, you might get away with a smaller launching rocket. Though the spacecraft needs to be properly designed for it (which also adds mass of course); we didn't ever do it because of other priorities for Venus orbiters.
But it isn't conceptually far from what Soviets did with their Venus landers - usually no orbital insertion was taking place.
Stripping away the atmosphere is, obviously, only one side of the equation. On the other side you have how much of the atmosphere it is there initially / how it is replenished
Well, then you would have molecules containing large amount of carbon and also free O2 in the same place. Both in immense quantities. In an enviroment with known huge lighting strikes. See the problem?
Venus rotates on the order of "once per year". WHile this doesn't mean much with its current thick atmosphere, it's really, really not conductive to Earth-like enviroments. Youd would get variations between the harshest Antarctic night and Sahara heat with separation of 100 days between them. The atmosphere would freeze solid on the night side, with day side dominated by evaporation and completelly dry.
Active volcanically but in a weird way; no plate tectonics, total resurfacing of the planet once in a while. Pretty much whatever gets released or falls on it from space, stays on the surface / in the atmosphere.
CO2 is by far the most important contribution in the case of Venusian temperature. Sulfuric acid just makes the envirment toxic from our point of view.
Venus is a hard case, it doesn't have plate tectonics. Carbon would be mostly left on the surface, eventually returning to atmosphere after reacting with, also released, oxygen.
Intel has 50% of new machines, that's not prevalent? Really? (I won't be surpised if it will be more, with Core i3 and i5)
And of course gaming is a huge cultural phenomena. But you seem to be still confused; big success of gaming doesn't translate to it being part of dominating usage pattern.
You seem to treat as PCs only machines that have a chance of being played on often. You dismiss immense number of fully PC-compatible machines used in scenarios which essentially exclude gaming; to sweep aside the thing that great number of PCs will never see any "real" game. But allright, let us pass on this one, this place doesn't need strong words...
Have you lost what this is about? Majority of people (and hence their PCs also) don't play games (at least not "true games"). Just...look...around you. Ask your family. Whole part of family that uses PCs in any meanigful way.
(yes, laptops can be upgraded...not the cheap Intel ones, when it comes to GFX; and again hardly anybody does that)
And yet, latest ARM cores are much closer to that 68k transistors from 1980, while not being nearly that far behind i7 in performance as the relation between numbers of transistors would suggest.
Oh; and I really worry about decisions made before active MRI and other techniques came about, I think some horrible things have happened.
That's an unavoidable side-effect of progress. Think about how many lives were lost to trivial (nowadays) deseases. How many lost due to lack of basic resuscitation. How many are lost currently due to such trivial stuff as decapitation or lack of heart and brain activity for a pitifuly short periods of time.
And yet, wasn't one of the biggest recent FPS hits limited to "company servers" only? Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 without LAN-play? (with some speculation that it might be not completelly free to play, with premium accounts from what I remember?)
Of course there is a way to discern. It involves...whether it is ever used for "real gaming" or not. (and BTW, we're talking here about this mystical world of "real, hardcore PC gaming" of course)
I's quite easy to determine that for a large part of the market. Intel has half of GFX sales and PCs are hardly modular as a group for some time now, considering that most of them sold are...laptops - those machines are out; can't run demanding games, are not upgraded. Or do you forget about millions and millions used very firmly in work scenarios? Rest of the machines could be all "in"...only if you assume they are used by demographic that universally plays "real" games, and that's far from true.
Did you miss that I specifically adressed that PS3 isn't as clear-cut anymore? Besides, this isn't about consoles per se, just how easily you can say in such case that vast majority of people indeed do the activity being discussed. PCs are used by everybody, in all kinds of ways.
Yes, you took a time to describe why Intel GFX is so prevalent...but that doesn't really change anything in how those machines are used, doesn't it? In most cases. I didn't say that nobody plays PC games at all, just that it's quite rare in the big picture.
Slashdot Mirror
For multitasking you also don't need Core i7, you know...
Prime95 is trivial to not notice even on old, singlecore CPUs. There's hardly any HDD i/o, which has the biggest potential of slowing you down if there's something happening in the background. There's basically just computation.
Not that long ago any cessation of breathing meant you were left to die.
BTW, there's data strongly suggesting that, regarding anoxic damage to the brain, how you keep it stable after damage and how you "wake it up" is at least as important as how it was "shut down".
In the past, a broken bone would often leave you crippled for life (if you survived at all). And look where we are now...
Graphite would be also quite reactive at those pressures and temperatures, I guess. And do you know how possible are microorganisms producing diamond?
Venus will be hard, it has immense quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere. I guess enough to have oceans, if it could be liquified. And look at Earth, it's atmosphere isn't very reactive with its oceans; or not terribly reactive with any significant part of dry surface. But change water with hydrocarbons and...
Of course it does; the only serious burn in the vicinity of Earth (small slingshot from the Moon migh help too) and you're on a highly elliptical orbit intersecting Venus. Orbital mechanics means that your speed will be quite a bit high for Venus orbital insertion, but that's where considerable aerobraking comes in; which means you don't need so much fuel, the initial burn at the Earth might be smaller, you might get away with a smaller launching rocket. Though the spacecraft needs to be properly designed for it (which also adds mass of course); we didn't ever do it because of other priorities for Venus orbiters.
But it isn't conceptually far from what Soviets did with their Venus landers - usually no orbital insertion was taking place.
Stripping away the atmosphere is, obviously, only one side of the equation. On the other side you have how much of the atmosphere it is there initially / how it is replenished
Well, then you would have molecules containing large amount of carbon and also free O2 in the same place. Both in immense quantities. In an enviroment with known huge lighting strikes. See the problem?
Regarding 3 - to be fair, Venus can provide some serious aerobraking.
Venus rotates on the order of "once per year". WHile this doesn't mean much with its current thick atmosphere, it's really, really not conductive to Earth-like enviroments. Youd would get variations between the harshest Antarctic night and Sahara heat with separation of 100 days between them. The atmosphere would freeze solid on the night side, with day side dominated by evaporation and completelly dry.
Active volcanically but in a weird way; no plate tectonics, total resurfacing of the planet once in a while. Pretty much whatever gets released or falls on it from space, stays on the surface / in the atmosphere.
...meanwhile, K'Breel was preparing another galzak inspiring message to the Council.
if we can confirm there is no existing life on Mars
This one will be hard, Mars is probably too borderline with is invorement to say with high certainity, even if "we haven't found anything yet"
Also, I'm not sure if dumping waste would be productive...yes, some life will hang on; but the resulting biosphere won't be very useful to us.
CO2 is by far the most important contribution in the case of Venusian temperature. Sulfuric acid just makes the envirment toxic from our point of view.
Venus is a hard case, it doesn't have plate tectonics. Carbon would be mostly left on the surface, eventually returning to atmosphere after reacting with, also released, oxygen.
Intel has 50% of new machines, that's not prevalent? Really? (I won't be surpised if it will be more, with Core i3 and i5)
And of course gaming is a huge cultural phenomena. But you seem to be still confused; big success of gaming doesn't translate to it being part of dominating usage pattern.
You seem to treat as PCs only machines that have a chance of being played on often. You dismiss immense number of fully PC-compatible machines used in scenarios which essentially exclude gaming; to sweep aside the thing that great number of PCs will never see any "real" game. But allright, let us pass on this one, this place doesn't need strong words...
Have you lost what this is about? Majority of people (and hence their PCs also) don't play games (at least not "true games"). Just...look...around you. Ask your family. Whole part of family that uses PCs in any meanigful way.
(yes, laptops can be upgraded...not the cheap Intel ones, when it comes to GFX; and again hardly anybody does that)
And yet, latest ARM cores are much closer to that 68k transistors from 1980, while not being nearly that far behind i7 in performance as the relation between numbers of transistors would suggest.
Perhaps ARM found the sweet spot.
I, for one, welcome our Mars-terraforming lichen overlords.
Oh; and I really worry about decisions made before active MRI and other techniques came about, I think some horrible things have happened.
That's an unavoidable side-effect of progress. Think about how many lives were lost to trivial (nowadays) deseases. How many lost due to lack of basic resuscitation. How many are lost currently due to such trivial stuff as decapitation or lack of heart and brain activity for a pitifuly short periods of time.
Next step: compare with Russians (but don't drink yourself like them, the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases in Russia shows it's not good for you)
PS. why Batman isn't a heavy drinker, and from where he gets his stamina in such case?
And yet, wasn't one of the biggest recent FPS hits limited to "company servers" only? Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 without LAN-play? (with some speculation that it might be not completelly free to play, with premium accounts from what I remember?)
Rest might follow.
Antislashdot?
Let us never meet, for the resulting release of energy will catastrophically disrupt the lithosphere (considering basements...)
Of course there is a way to discern. It involves...whether it is ever used for "real gaming" or not. (and BTW, we're talking here about this mystical world of "real, hardcore PC gaming" of course)
I's quite easy to determine that for a large part of the market. Intel has half of GFX sales and PCs are hardly modular as a group for some time now, considering that most of them sold are...laptops - those machines are out; can't run demanding games, are not upgraded. Or do you forget about millions and millions used very firmly in work scenarios? Rest of the machines could be all "in"...only if you assume they are used by demographic that universally plays "real" games, and that's far from true.
Yeah, you are confused, indeed.
Did you miss that I specifically adressed that PS3 isn't as clear-cut anymore? Besides, this isn't about consoles per se, just how easily you can say in such case that vast majority of people indeed do the activity being discussed. PCs are used by everybody, in all kinds of ways.
Yes, you took a time to describe why Intel GFX is so prevalent...but that doesn't really change anything in how those machines are used, doesn't it? In most cases. I didn't say that nobody plays PC games at all, just that it's quite rare in the big picture.
BTW, Nvidia also does integrated GFX solutions...
...what I have to put up with on a daily basis.
Oh well, not for very long anymore.
You misunderstood. It's not abut PC gaming being insignificant as "PC gaming", it's about it being only a small part of PC market.