Perhaps you can help me? I'm not a "java" guy, thoughI have previously played a little. He said that he compliled his java via, "javac objinst.java", which I did as, "javac objinst.java". I then compiled the cpp as, "g++ -O2 -march=i686 -o objinst objinst.cpp", which seems to match his. I then run, again according to the instructions, "time objinst 100000000", which seems to run fine. It runs to completion without error. When I attempt to run the java code, as, "time java -server -cp java objinst 100000000", I get, "Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: objinst". And yes, my java installation works fine. I use it with several java applications, including megamek and eclipse.
Can anyon off a clue as to why the java benchmark doesn't work?
Funny, I would say that the guy that attributes statements to the wrong person as brainless. I never said the things you seemed to state.
Regardless, 15k drives are often a waste of money over 10k drives.
And so, we're back to the basic facts. Which means, as a rule of thumb, a 10k drive IS going to be faster and makes much more sense for the vast majority of power users.
And so, we're left pointing at the brainless (and laughing somewhat). Of course, we're completely ignorant the sheer stupidity that is your post because you completely ignore seek times and take the position that transfer speed is all that matters.
And, by far, most users are going to see pretty much the same difference between a 7200rpm drive and a 10k drive. A power user should spend their money on a 10k drive and spend the difference they saved on more memory and/or a better video card.
We seem to of found another stupid, worthless moderator. Why is it so hard for mods to do their job properly? If you guys would do your job right the first time, people wouldn't have to point out the obvious to you. Thusly, it's unfair to mod people down for pointing out that a mod screwed up and didn't do his/her job properly.
Right, but put that into context. Let's say you have a walkie talkie with a 4 inche antennae. Replace it with a 4 inche one of these suckers, so wouldn't my initial assessment still hold true? If I'm reading your comment right, you're assuming you'd be replacing that same antennea with a much smaller one, right?
And how much your many years experience deals with anything but traditional antennae? If you experience deals with only traditional antennae designs, your concerns should be cornered for now. Not that a healthy level of skepticism isn't good. It is, but in the last couple of years, there have been several announcements of new antennae designs which seem to break the traditional antennae design molds. Accordingly, I'm willing to give a little faith here.
Keep in mind that lots of radio is line of sight so, higher means better sight in hilly areas, not forgetting that tall buildings can also cause problems. Thusly, I can't imagine tall towers going anywhere anytime soon.
For smaller gadgets, couldn't this mean an extra boost to battery life beyond the obvious? After all, if you have a small antenna which is more effecient, doesn't this mean less power has to be spent on things like amplifiers and noise filters? Granted, I'm sure you'll still need to filter, but with a better signal, doesn't that mean less filtering because of a better signal. Likewise, less amplifaction required because you can pull in a stronger, better signal?
If you don't want to go the Flash route and stick to straight HTML, cut your images into smaller squares and use CSS or tables to assemble them in the browser. That's more of a pain but casual image theft is less likely when someone has to paste together 16 thumbnail-sized images.
I recently saw a tool on freshmeat that extracts those images and reconstitutes it into a single image. From what I read in the description, you simply had to give it an URL and it will extract the images for you.
So, while it obviously cuts out the masses, it seems the geeks already have a tool available which makes it a piece of cake.
So, don't remember the name of the package, but I do recall it had a REALLY funky name...like pornriper or something funky like that.
You never did read the whole thread did you? You are an idiot. Worse, you insist on reading and stating things I never stated. That makes you an huge idiot.
Hmmm. I'm truly at a loss of what to say to you. My ego has little to do with this. Do you have to have proof of everything pushed down your throat or is there anything you're willing to take at face value? Even if you don't believe it, which I invite you to do, is it that hard for you to simply get off your lazy arse and make an effort your self?
I know when I hear something that rings as possibly being true, I'm willing to take it at face value or I'll get off my butt and learn about it my self. Does a link 100% validate everything someone tells you? If the answer is yes, you're a fool. If the answer is no, then what are you complaining about, you'd still have to make an effort.
After it's all said and done, it seems like you're not only lazy, but simply looking for an excuse to complain because you didn't like the answer. tough. Get over it.
Wow, the idiot mods acting up again. I was polite and pointed out that the moron was rude (which he was) and didn't know what he was talking about...and I was rated troll. Some mods are not fit to breath.
You really are a prick. My APPLICATIONS (or is that word too big for you) are in C and C++ and have nothing to do with HTML.
Let me guess. You can do hello world in VB and mommy made you a cake and everything. Congrats. Speaking as a very experienced, multiplatform (including multiwin platforms), I call bullshit on your ignorant trolls.
I think it's safe to say, mommy didn't breast feed you enough and you feel like you need to get your attention here. Good luck with that...
And you call *me* a troll?
The shoe sure fits....so don't complain...no wait...that's what you seem to do best...
Grow up. Are you really that lazy where I not only have to hand the facts to you, but I have to give you the documentationto boot?
Come on....believe it or not....it doesn't change the facts. And, I doubt it would require much effort to look up these results. The results were fairly well circulated and repeated and complained about by many developers. The simple fact is, it's well into the common knowledge pool.
Do I need to offer a link that man landed on the moon too?
So you're saying because OO.o's and Seamonkey's developers chose to show off their 733T xplatform skills
Nope. I didn't say and certainly did not mean to imply anything close to that. What I said is that there are some differences which need to be taken into account when comparing speed. One of the primary differences is, if you use a crossplatform application, it's not an apples to apples comparison to cite a natively optimized application versus a crossplatform one. Granted, some crossplatform apps can be wicked fast, but Mozilla compounded it by the use of XUL and a whole new, non-native toolset. I'm simply stating, keep that in mind so you can attempt to do an apples to apples comparison. Most people don't know this or forget and wind up doing an apples to oranges comparison. As such, they will never be satisified.
And people wonder where the FLOSS dev crowd gets the "arrogant" label!
Well, I would assume that label is from people that are ignorant of the subject matter, especially technical details, and rush to make poor judgements and/or technology assessments. In this case, "arrogant", which seem to fit well the mass of incorrect assumptions that I've seen here today. I might add, none of which, seem to be coming from the FLOSS camp.
Your line of argument pre-supposes one thing: that xplatform is actually required by the users
I don't think so. In fact, I think I even stated they were orthogonal to each other. On the other hand, crossplatform is normally a way of effectively serving multiple platforms in a timely manner. It's a trade off. You want a good application everywhere or do you want a better application on one platform. In the case of IE, even that is not accurate because IE really is the lessor of the two. Feel free to compare features.
Blind mantras of "xplatform everywhere", IMO, are extremely harmful.
Well, I do agree with you that "blind" anything can be very bad. Just the same, I don't think crossplatform generally comes into the picture because of lack of foresight. In fact, it's generally there before of forward thinkings.
If there was ever a tale of arrogant engineers and poor engineering decisions sinking a ship, this is it.
Well, I'm actually fairly ignorant of the decision details there, just the same, XUL delivered on a lot too. Which is not to say that I'm an XUL fan, but they are out there. Unless you were there to share in the process, it's probably safe to say your assumptions are the case example of arrogance.
Yuck. Slashdot FUD and groupthink and its worst.
I'm sorry, but that's fact. The issue was even brought up in MS' antitrust trial. Furthermore, the issues were very well publicized. Should I assume that further references to FUD actually means fact?
Ooh. Worlds apart. How bloody patronizing.
Patronizing? How so? I'm honestly not sure what you mean. One aspect is of great technical importance while the other is not. If fact is patronizing, then I guess I am.
Go read ESR's CUPS
I would think that your assumption that ESR speaks for everyone is well, greatly arrogant. Shamefully so, in fact.
One day arrogant, clueless developers like you will understand that when it comes to desktop software at least, perception IS reality. Until then, the entire OSS GUI experience will continue to be an unmitigated horror.
Or maybe, arrgant users, such as your self, will continue to be ignored because they don't live in reality. Perception is not reality, that's exactly why we use things like watches and calendars. That's the line of thinking that gets users in trouble.
Look, no one is saying that Mozilla is the best software ever made. It surely appears that some odd dicisions surround it. Just the same, if you don't like it, don't use. It really is that simple. Unlike IE, no one is attempting to force you to use it. Meanwhile, Mozilla is getting better, is getting faster, and is far more capbable and compliant than IE. If better isn't better to you, don't use it.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? Arrogance?
Sadly, I doubt you'll be seeing them anytime soon unless you'll working with an embedded system. The two systems which I read replaced the sysv init scripts, were not backward compatible at all. Worse, they were not entirely robust because they were more proof on concept than anything else. Likewise, I read of at least two guys doing startup block read optimizations. Both of those were proof of concept stuff and required a fair bit of technical knowledge to actually pull off. In that case, it would need a whole lot more polish to come anywhere near inclusion in the kernel. Which is, not to say it won't happen, I just imagine the developers are a lot more pragmatic than the average windows developer, so I don't foresee much developement being done on it.
I'm tyring to figure out if I should laugh and point or simply point. Hmm. Maybe I should point and then laugh. Well, now that I think about it, maybe I should laugh, pick my self up from the floor, and then point. Hmmm...maybe I'll just laugh...
Yes, I've done financial applications on Win systems which were expected to run 24/7 and had billions of dollars go through them. I've also done like applications on OS/2, SCO, Digital Unix, OSF/1, and HP/UX. Furthermore, our applications were some of the first to be deployed on NT/Alpha. So, my Win experience goes back a fair bit, up to and including, current platforms.
Did you just decide to troll or did you just figure out you don't know what you're talking about? The situations that I'm talking about got lots and lots of press and were even brought up in the anti-trust trail for Microsoft. Go check the facts before you sound like an idiot attempting to troll again.
Well, that's a great observation, but the fact remains, Mozilla's audience has been steadily growing, especially on the Win32 platform. What does that tell you? It says, a fair portion of users are unhappy with IE and two, that in spite of such "issues", and the fact that people have to make an effort to download and install it, it just doesn't matter.
Perhaps such changes are the difference between critical mass and not, just the same, it's not stoping it from reaching new users. And, in spite of the slower start ups, the better features and compliance to specifications, appear to be fairly appealing.
Feel free to do some searching your self. Just because you're very lazy and ignorant of the subject matter hardly invalidates the truth.
At the time that these benchmarks were done, they got a lot of attention on the web and usenet. Either should be a good source of reference.
Please, don't let your laziness stop you from learning the truth. Or did you simply mean to troll?
BTW, who are these idiots that have nothing better to do than to create a link to every single item on the net that they read? I personally, have a life. Which is not to say, I don't enjoy reading, but come on...do you save every link to everything you've ever read? If the answre is no, then F-off! If the answer is yes, you're pethetic, don't stop now, go get a life.
It's funny that Moz takes 15 to 30 seconds to launch if you don't use the methods that you claim "don't matter", yet it loads in the same time as IE if you *do* use those methods, isn't it?
Well, that's amazing because it speaks exceptionally poor of Microsoft. Microsoft has a number of block read optimizations which are standard as well as a number of DLLs which get loaded during start up. Worse, Mozilla has to load a ton of stuff (e.g. XUL) which IE doesn't. Add in the fact that Mozilla has implemented much more features, that's down right crappy of MS. If Mozilla really is getting that close, it means Microsoft is one of the biggest idiots in world. None of which change, all of the facts that I've presented.
Now ask your self, will I lose sleep if you continue to function under false impressions of how MS systems work? In case the answer is not obvious, the answer is, no.
Before you respond, you might bother to read the thread to see if it addresses your "issues". If reading the thread doesn't resove this, we'll have to agree to disagree. As a developer, I will happily sit smug, regardless of your belief.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you can help me? I'm not a "java" guy, thoughI have previously played a little. He said that he compliled his java via, "javac objinst.java", which I did as, "javac objinst.java". I then compiled the cpp as, "g++ -O2 -march=i686 -o objinst objinst.cpp", which seems to match his. I then run, again according to the instructions, "time objinst 100000000", which seems to run fine. It runs to completion without error. When I attempt to run the java code, as, "time java -server -cp java objinst 100000000", I get, "Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: objinst". And yes, my java installation works fine. I use it with several java applications, including megamek and eclipse.
Can anyon off a clue as to why the java benchmark doesn't work?
You guys are brainless.
Funny, I would say that the guy that attributes statements to the wrong person as brainless. I never said the things you seemed to state.
Regardless, 15k drives are often a waste of money over 10k drives.
And so, we're back to the basic facts. Which means, as a rule of thumb, a 10k drive IS going to be faster and makes much more sense for the vast majority of power users.
And so, we're left pointing at the brainless (and laughing somewhat). Of course, we're completely ignorant the sheer stupidity that is your post because you completely ignore seek times and take the position that transfer speed is all that matters.
LOL. Now, that's brainless.
And, by far, most users are going to see pretty much the same difference between a 7200rpm drive and a 10k drive. A power user should spend their money on a 10k drive and spend the difference they saved on more memory and/or a better video card.
We seem to of found another stupid, worthless moderator. Why is it so hard for mods to do their job properly? If you guys would do your job right the first time, people wouldn't have to point out the obvious to you. Thusly, it's unfair to mod people down for pointing out that a mod screwed up and didn't do his/her job properly.
Right, but put that into context. Let's say you have a walkie talkie with a 4 inche antennae. Replace it with a 4 inche one of these suckers, so wouldn't my initial assessment still hold true? If I'm reading your comment right, you're assuming you'd be replacing that same antennea with a much smaller one, right?
I hear ya. I certainly did not mean to invalidate your concern. I'm just saying, let's have a little faith and let the physicist sort it out. ;)
;)
Oddly enough, an example as you cited, was cited as a traditional trade off. I guess we'll see where the cards fall.
Here's to hoping your suspicion is wrong.
Cheers!
Here are some of the reasons for my skepticism.
And how much your many years experience deals with anything but traditional antennae? If you experience deals with only traditional antennae designs, your concerns should be cornered for now. Not that a healthy level of skepticism isn't good. It is, but in the last couple of years, there have been several announcements of new antennae designs which seem to break the traditional antennae design molds. Accordingly, I'm willing to give a little faith here.
Informative???
Come on mods...this is supposed to be funny. It's the friggen Eiffel tower! Come on! Laugh already.
Just what we need is 50 more worthless comcast stations in my area. ;)
Keep in mind that lots of radio is line of sight so, higher means better sight in hilly areas, not forgetting that tall buildings can also cause problems. Thusly, I can't imagine tall towers going anywhere anytime soon.
For smaller gadgets, couldn't this mean an extra boost to battery life beyond the obvious? After all, if you have a small antenna which is more effecient, doesn't this mean less power has to be spent on things like amplifiers and noise filters? Granted, I'm sure you'll still need to filter, but with a better signal, doesn't that mean less filtering because of a better signal. Likewise, less amplifaction required because you can pull in a stronger, better signal?
If you don't want to go the Flash route and stick to straight HTML, cut your images into smaller squares and use CSS or tables to assemble them in the browser. That's more of a pain but casual image theft is less likely when someone has to paste together 16 thumbnail-sized images.
I recently saw a tool on freshmeat that extracts those images and reconstitutes it into a single image. From what I read in the description, you simply had to give it an URL and it will extract the images for you.
So, while it obviously cuts out the masses, it seems the geeks already have a tool available which makes it a piece of cake.
So, don't remember the name of the package, but I do recall it had a REALLY funky name...like pornriper or something funky like that.
You never did read the whole thread did you? You are an idiot. Worse, you insist on reading and stating things I never stated. That makes you an huge idiot.
You're unfit to breath air.
Hmmm. I'm truly at a loss of what to say to you. My ego has little to do with this. Do you have to have proof of everything pushed down your throat or is there anything you're willing to take at face value? Even if you don't believe it, which I invite you to do, is it that hard for you to simply get off your lazy arse and make an effort your self?
I know when I hear something that rings as possibly being true, I'm willing to take it at face value or I'll get off my butt and learn about it my self. Does a link 100% validate everything someone tells you? If the answer is yes, you're a fool. If the answer is no, then what are you complaining about, you'd still have to make an effort.
After it's all said and done, it seems like you're not only lazy, but simply looking for an excuse to complain because you didn't like the answer. tough. Get over it.
Wow, the idiot mods acting up again. I was polite and pointed out that the moron was rude (which he was) and didn't know what he was talking about...and I was rated troll. Some mods are not fit to breath.
LOL!
You really are a prick. My APPLICATIONS (or is that word too big for you) are in C and C++ and have nothing to do with HTML.
Let me guess. You can do hello world in VB and mommy made you a cake and everything. Congrats. Speaking as a very experienced, multiplatform (including multiwin platforms), I call bullshit on your ignorant trolls.
I think it's safe to say, mommy didn't breast feed you enough and you feel like you need to get your attention here. Good luck with that...
And you call *me* a troll?
The shoe sure fits....so don't complain...no wait...that's what you seem to do best...
Do you have a link to support your rambling?
Grow up. Are you really that lazy where I not only have to hand the facts to you, but I have to give you the documentationto boot?
Come on....believe it or not....it doesn't change the facts. And, I doubt it would require much effort to look up these results. The results were fairly well circulated and repeated and complained about by many developers. The simple fact is, it's well into the common knowledge pool.
Do I need to offer a link that man landed on the moon too?
So you're saying because OO.o's and Seamonkey's developers chose to show off their 733T xplatform skills
Nope. I didn't say and certainly did not mean to imply anything close to that. What I said is that there are some differences which need to be taken into account when comparing speed. One of the primary differences is, if you use a crossplatform application, it's not an apples to apples comparison to cite a natively optimized application versus a crossplatform one. Granted, some crossplatform apps can be wicked fast, but Mozilla compounded it by the use of XUL and a whole new, non-native toolset. I'm simply stating, keep that in mind so you can attempt to do an apples to apples comparison. Most people don't know this or forget and wind up doing an apples to oranges comparison. As such, they will never be satisified.
And people wonder where the FLOSS dev crowd gets the "arrogant" label!
Well, I would assume that label is from people that are ignorant of the subject matter, especially technical details, and rush to make poor judgements and/or technology assessments. In this case, "arrogant", which seem to fit well the mass of incorrect assumptions that I've seen here today. I might add, none of which, seem to be coming from the FLOSS camp.
Your line of argument pre-supposes one thing: that xplatform is actually required by the users
I don't think so. In fact, I think I even stated they were orthogonal to each other. On the other hand, crossplatform is normally a way of effectively serving multiple platforms in a timely manner. It's a trade off. You want a good application everywhere or do you want a better application on one platform. In the case of IE, even that is not accurate because IE really is the lessor of the two. Feel free to compare features.
Blind mantras of "xplatform everywhere", IMO, are extremely harmful.
Well, I do agree with you that "blind" anything can be very bad. Just the same, I don't think crossplatform generally comes into the picture because of lack of foresight. In fact, it's generally there before of forward thinkings.
If there was ever a tale of arrogant engineers and poor engineering decisions sinking a ship, this is it.
Well, I'm actually fairly ignorant of the decision details there, just the same, XUL delivered on a lot too. Which is not to say that I'm an XUL fan, but they are out there. Unless you were there to share in the process, it's probably safe to say your assumptions are the case example of arrogance.
Yuck. Slashdot FUD and groupthink and its worst.
I'm sorry, but that's fact. The issue was even brought up in MS' antitrust trial. Furthermore, the issues were very well publicized. Should I assume that further references to FUD actually means fact?
Ooh. Worlds apart. How bloody patronizing.
Patronizing? How so? I'm honestly not sure what you mean. One aspect is of great technical importance while the other is not. If fact is patronizing, then I guess I am.
Go read ESR's CUPS
I would think that your assumption that ESR speaks for everyone is well, greatly arrogant. Shamefully so, in fact.
One day arrogant, clueless developers like you will understand that when it comes to desktop software at least, perception IS reality. Until then, the entire OSS GUI experience will continue to be an unmitigated horror.
Or maybe, arrgant users, such as your self, will continue to be ignored because they don't live in reality. Perception is not reality, that's exactly why we use things like watches and calendars. That's the line of thinking that gets users in trouble.
Look, no one is saying that Mozilla is the best software ever made. It surely appears that some odd dicisions surround it. Just the same, if you don't like it, don't use. It really is that simple. Unlike IE, no one is attempting to force you to use it. Meanwhile, Mozilla is getting better, is getting faster, and is far more capbable and compliant than IE. If better isn't better to you, don't use it.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? Arrogance?
Sadly, I doubt you'll be seeing them anytime soon unless you'll working with an embedded system. The two systems which I read replaced the sysv init scripts, were not backward compatible at all. Worse, they were not entirely robust because they were more proof on concept than anything else. Likewise, I read of at least two guys doing startup block read optimizations. Both of those were proof of concept stuff and required a fair bit of technical knowledge to actually pull off. In that case, it would need a whole lot more polish to come anywhere near inclusion in the kernel. Which is, not to say it won't happen, I just imagine the developers are a lot more pragmatic than the average windows developer, so I don't foresee much developement being done on it.
I have to ask, do you really reboot that often?
LOL.
I'm tyring to figure out if I should laugh and point or simply point. Hmm. Maybe I should point and then laugh. Well, now that I think about it, maybe I should laugh, pick my self up from the floor, and then point. Hmmm...maybe I'll just laugh...
Oh well, I'll figure it out later.
LOL!
Yes, I've done financial applications on Win systems which were expected to run 24/7 and had billions of dollars go through them. I've also done like applications on OS/2, SCO, Digital Unix, OSF/1, and HP/UX. Furthermore, our applications were some of the first to be deployed on NT/Alpha. So, my Win experience goes back a fair bit, up to and including, current platforms.
Did you just decide to troll or did you just figure out you don't know what you're talking about? The situations that I'm talking about got lots and lots of press and were even brought up in the anti-trust trail for Microsoft. Go check the facts before you sound like an idiot attempting to troll again.
BTW, which part do you doubt? The *FACT* that XP is more bloated than any previous release, or the *FACT* that the IPC mechanisms are slower?
Heck, even check some of the developer news groups and web sites. Chances are, you'll find plenty of such comments.
Well, that's a great observation, but the fact remains, Mozilla's audience has been steadily growing, especially on the Win32 platform. What does that tell you? It says, a fair portion of users are unhappy with IE and two, that in spite of such "issues", and the fact that people have to make an effort to download and install it, it just doesn't matter.
Perhaps such changes are the difference between critical mass and not, just the same, it's not stoping it from reaching new users. And, in spite of the slower start ups, the better features and compliance to specifications, appear to be fairly appealing.
Feel free to do some searching your self. Just because you're very lazy and ignorant of the subject matter hardly invalidates the truth.
At the time that these benchmarks were done, they got a lot of attention on the web and usenet. Either should be a good source of reference.
Please, don't let your laziness stop you from learning the truth. Or did you simply mean to troll?
BTW, who are these idiots that have nothing better to do than to create a link to every single item on the net that they read? I personally, have a life. Which is not to say, I don't enjoy reading, but come on...do you save every link to everything you've ever read? If the answre is no, then F-off! If the answer is yes, you're pethetic, don't stop now, go get a life.
It's funny that Moz takes 15 to 30 seconds to launch if you don't use the methods that you claim "don't matter", yet it loads in the same time as IE if you *do* use those methods, isn't it?
Well, that's amazing because it speaks exceptionally poor of Microsoft. Microsoft has a number of block read optimizations which are standard as well as a number of DLLs which get loaded during start up. Worse, Mozilla has to load a ton of stuff (e.g. XUL) which IE doesn't. Add in the fact that Mozilla has implemented much more features, that's down right crappy of MS. If Mozilla really is getting that close, it means Microsoft is one of the biggest idiots in world. None of which change, all of the facts that I've presented.
Now ask your self, will I lose sleep if you continue to function under false impressions of how MS systems work? In case the answer is not obvious, the answer is, no.
Before you respond, you might bother to read the thread to see if it addresses your "issues". If reading the thread doesn't resove this, we'll have to agree to disagree. As a developer, I will happily sit smug, regardless of your belief.