In case you're curious here's some info on the redhat mailing list about it.
Note that this message is from 2003, but still not a lot has been done.
It is possible though... you can check if your system uses md5 or blowfish by looking in/etc/shadow. If the passwords start with $1$ that means it's MD5, if it says $2$ that's blowfish.
While this is definitely an informative post (and should remain modded so), it seems to give the impression you are suggesting that cracking won't work for OSX because it's not just a "simple" matter of decompiling / debug stepping through the raw assembler code.
Of course it's harder to do this at the OS/kernel level, although for those who know what they're doing it's really no more (or less) difficult than cracking games.
And actually many games these days come with highly HIGHLY sophisticated anti-piracy countermeasures that go WAY beyond what you've described above. Ie, StarForce is a good example. And do you remember the dongles of yesteryears? That stuff got pretty sophisticated too, with some programs having entire sections of code running through a hardware dongle decrypter!
Of course these schemes were reverse engineered and cracked nearly instantly (including StarForce).
You're kidding yourself if you think OSX won't be cracked in the same way.
In case you weren't implying such a thing, then never mind, I just got the impression you were from your post.
You're right it does, but it's an interesting question, one that I wouldn't have thought about enough to google myself.
Plus the thing about google is, all it does is find published articles, and most of it is marketing hype.
When you ask slashdot, you're asking because you want to know the geekly opinion, which is often quite a bit different, easier, and less annoying, than spending hours wading through internet fluff.
The apostrophe is only used to indicate possessives of nouns. See this page for a reference.
For the lazy, I quote: "Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals, including acronyms."
On a slightly more pressing issue than grammar, you really should quit your behavior of personal attacks in order to strengthen your ego.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone adopted the policy of wishing to have correct information, and not simply to be correct regardless of whether or not their information is?
There's no need to call someone names, even if they are wrong!
The information I find of particular interest is in the column that's sorted by response time, especially the programs that didn't proactively react such as: ClamAV, F-Secure, Sophos, McAfee, Symantec... ie all the big guys.
The interesting thing about this (and these are the guys that don't give so many false positives as you are right -- you definitely need to avoid this).
The interesting thing is that out of all the big guys, Symantec comes up basically last!
The difference between say 3 minutes, or even 45 minutes and Symantec's 3 hours is huge! Depending on the virus 3-5 minutes may be all it needs to propagate through an entire company's network. But some are much slower, taking several hours.
Either way, the lower the response time the better!
Clearly you just wish to prove you're right. Really you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And those random links are exactly that... random.
What did you think those links would do? Make you seem like you know what you're talking about.
Did you even read my last post?
Even though they may not be actually using the imlib library (which I said might be the case), the fast graphics code comes nearly verbatim from imlib (which is also exactly what I said).
Ie:
gdk-pixbuf-xlib-drawable.c:/* copied from Imlib */ io-tiff.c:/* Following code (almost) blatantly ripped from Imlib */ io-xbm.c: ripped from Imlib'' */
If you cared to even read what I wrote you'd know that what I was saying was the speed you see in gnome-terminal is mainly due to the efforts of the E team.
Yeah, widget drawing is certainly a problem. I mean it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a solution that can use both gtk, qt, and a custom themable widget set for the tabs, but still... it's a problem nonetheless.
As for tabs in current applications such as firefox, gnome-terminal, etc... they basically use the approach of running a separate process anyway.
But, having said that, you hit on the point of leaving the tabs to the apps where the designer has total control.
Is this a good thing? I really want to say yes, but I'm having a hard time convincing myself of it.
Consider for a moment if the previous problems could be solved... what if there was a consistent interface across all applications for tabs. You would know what key stroke makes and destroys a tab for every app. They would all look the same, the tabs would be in the same place, so your brain would be trained that much better to know where to look for tabs.
You've got some good points, and you're right, until those are solved tabs are much better left where they are now, in the apps.
But if it is possible to solve those, I still think a more global tab scheme would be a great thing.
Well... Eterm definitely has a bunch of good options (I used it as my primary terminal for several years).
The things that made me switch to gnome-terminal:
Tabs.
Really good behavior. If I scroll back the buffer only jumps back to the end if I hit a key. Mouse selection can scroll the buffer if you want to select something more than a page long (even while the console is being written to).
Clickable web and email links. I can even click things like clickme.com (without the www or http beginning) Yes it's a small thing, but it just adds to the overall polished feel of the program.
Anti-aliased fonts. No Eterm does not do this. (This is a big one). I simply won't live without anti-aliasing these days. Yep it's slower, but it looks SOOO much better. Especially because in my older age I find I need to crank up the font size:).
Proper window title updates when used with "screen." I do a lot of background tasks in screen, and although it never bothered me that much that Eterm's title updates don't work properly, I realize now how much I was missing.
Proper full-screen mode. This is especially awesome when combined with tabs.
MASSIVE scroll back buffers (if desired).
That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a few other things too. I've been fully switched away from Eterm for a good year or so now.
I'm certainly no gnome or gnome-term fan boy though. It has its problems too -- mainly bloat. It takes a second or two to load (whereas Eterm is instantaneous).
If the E guys were to do up a nice slick terminal I would switch back without hesitating.
It really seems to me like tabs SHOULD be the responsibility of the WM. I mean, why build every app (since tabs are so trendy these days) with its own custom tab support. It doesn't make a lot of sense!
On the other hand, I've never seen a WM (including fluxbox, and ion) that can do tabs in a reasonable manner.
And about gnome-terminal being slow... yeah it really is. Especially compared to Eterm which is awesomely fast.
Maybe I'm wishing to have my cake and eat it too, but I really wish for some of gnome-terms functionality right inside Eterm (if not E itself). I have my suspicions that if the E team did, it would be without the bloating of gnome-term.
Notice that the imlib project source is stored on gnome's servers?
They might have integrated the functionality by now (I'm not super up to date with the gnome libs), but the fast graphics code they have came from the E team.
The thing is, I bet if the E team did a next-gen terminal, it would support all of the things I like, AND do it as fast and resource friendly as you like.
I was like you too, until I got used to gnome-term... now I can't imagine living without tabs. I also am in the same camp as you. I have many terminals open spread across several desktops... now I have some that I can conveniently group together with tabs: say these 4 are dedicated to something on this server, this next 3 are editing and testing some config setup here, etc. Could be that I'm just getting old and can't keep track of things as good any more, but I sure find it helpful.
Anyway I'm not trying to convince you to switch or anything, I'm just trying to show you that maybe, just maybe, if it were done right, you would like a terminal that did these things and more.
I think he meant a new Eterm. Yes of course Eterm still runs, but it's horrendously outdated now compared to some of the more modern terminals (especially gnome-terminal and konsole).
Gnome-terminal has the added advantage of using imlib2 (which is what made Eterm so fast), and includes such nice features as tabs, psuedo-trans, HUGE scrollbacks, really nice mouse support, clickable web and email addresses (if any should appear in the console text)... and much more.
Well put. Unless you've been using it non stop for a year or so, you probably can't comment on its stability... unless it's to say that it is unstable.
Having said that, I've been using E17 on and off for about a year, and although I still wouldn't qualify myself able to comment on its stability, I will say this:
It feels solid. You know how you can just feel the difference? Like when you first tried OS/2 and compared it to Win 3.1... you didn't exactly know why, but you knew it was rock solid.
That's the way E17 feels.
I haven't had it crash on me, but I certainly wouldn't suggest people rush out to start using it as their main WM. It's just not ready yet. There are tons of features that still need to be implemented before it's usuable full time.
I look forward to it though, for those who like the E style, it's going to be awesome!
Heh... yeah I can see how portable small scale wind power is a pretty stupid idea:).
My university's campus has these solar powered parking meter things, and each one has a little solar panel on the top that tracks the sun. I think that's why I got it in my head about the angles, I just (mistakenly) assumed all solar energy would need such a mechanism.
But you're totally right, anytime I've ever seen a house with solar panels they don't move or anything.
I suppose someone just needs to come up with wireless power already!... atleast something more convient than lightning, although I have to admit that would look (and sound) pretty awesome.
Can you imagine a cubicle maze with lightning shooting out of the ceiling all the time!
I suppose, on second thought, it would generally be fairly inneffective anyway (even putting overheating issues aside). As far as I understand solar cells require they be oriented to within a specific degree range to the sun, which would mean you'd always have to have your laptop pointed a certain direction (and orientation).
I guess the add-on solar cell idea is really much more ideal.
Most laptops only use ~30W of power, hopefully less as time goes on... This makes portable solar cells an option.
I'm not really sure about wind power... but an interesting idea would be to make a "3-in-one" alternative laptop powerer.
You could have a 30W solar pack, and two small windmill things (maybe with detachable fins for easy carrying). The fans could double as hydro generators if you stick them in a river.
You know... for all those times you're next to a river with your laptop (and there is no wind).
I suppose another idea might be to incorporate solar cells into the case of laptop.
Alternative energy is no solution to the battery problem, but I still think it's a cool idea. With even just solar cells you could easily work outside all day without needing to change batteries.
I don't know how useful this would be indoors, but I could see even indoor lighting generating some power (hey it works for calculators)...
I'd definitely carry around a solar pack even if it only increased my run time by 2 hours, any less and I don't think it'd be worh it. But I'd be pretty stoked about it if I could sit outside (think BEACH) all day with a laptop. How sweet would that be?
In case anyone is interested, MSN messenger (including webcam support) has been able to run on Linux (under Wine) since version 6.2:
More Info
Also, basically every messenger client is currently working on voice and video support. This includes GAIM, aMsn, Kopete, and KMess (I know for certain of these, there are probably others).
It'll come, it's just gonna take a little time that's all.
I can see I hit a nerve. Personal attacks even! Relax man!
I admit I didn't read TFA when I made my original post so I wasn't aware that they were talking about the actual bus speed (200MHz) and not the effective speed (which is usually what the industry uses when talking about FSB speeds) of 800MHz.
Either way it doesn't matter... even 1% off spec isn't a big enough deal to cause problems.
On the other hand... the chip timings I really don't know about. I have no experience in this area so I can't really say if that's libel to cause problems or not? It would certainly raise an eyebrow though.
The thing is... would Asus really do this to consumers if they didn't feel confident it wasn't going to cause problems? Hmmm, they might. It certainly wouldn't be out of character for most companies these days. But if it did cause problems, where is the evidence? Where are the reports of problems? All the review sites show pretty much nothing but content customers.
And here's something interesting: another review with screenshots, that show the FSB running at the proper 200MHz!? Have we been duped into believing a lie about a lie? Perhaps more important questions are in the works here. For one: should I ever believe anything posted on slashdot?:).
And while you ask, yes TV looks A LOT smoother than movies (to me). I can actually see movies flicker, which is (partly) why I've stopped going to the theatre.
Anyway... I do agree with you about the difference between say 55 and 60... you're right no one is going to visibly notice that. All I was trying to get at was that this is a more tangible number than the super small amounts of time that motherboard benchmarks are done in. Even though say 1/85th of a second is really damn fast, people can still grasp it.
That's all I was saying.
You're being pedantic and you know it.
Personal attacks are never a good way to show that you know what you're talking about. All it does is tell people you're insecure.
Wait, so on one hand, the overclocking doens't provide a measurable speed increase for games. But then somehow it *does* make a measurable difference in benchmarks.
You're forgetting how they do motherboard benching. The differences are usually so small that even a tiny leap in performance *looks* big on the graphs, when really it's not.
The funny thing is, all people care about is the look of a graph, not its actual content.
The good thing about game benchmarks is that FPS is a pretty tangible thing to people. When something is 3 or 5 FPS slower than something else, that's a HUGE noticeable difference.
I know the statement I made sounded contradictory, but it's really not.
About the 60Hz hum... it was MEANT to be silly. The thing is, your statements about chips being run 2 MHz out of spec is even sillier!
2 MHz on an 800 MHz front side bus is 0.25% out of "spec." If you look at the chip specifications for *any* of the chips on the board you'll see clearly laid out in their specifications they they are generally rated to run at what the spceifications say plus and minus 5% (usually the norm, but it ranges anywhere from 1-15 or so).
You obviously have no understanding of the manufacturing process, or how these things are made. You see they have to spec them for the lowest common denominator, at negative 65 degrees celcius AND plus 70 degrees (storage temps usually range from -65 to +150 celcius).
When you select a board from a company that uses the reject parts you get equipment that you definitely don't want to operate outside of the norm, but if you spend a little extra on something with decent componentry 0.25% is nothing at all.
And that's just for front side bus, if this is CPU overclocking we're talking it's closer to 0.05%.
The actual operating speed of your processor probably varies that much in any given day just through heat and other factors!
Seriously before you whip out some "faraday cage" science just to sound like you know what you're talking about, you should really think about what you're saying.
The thing you're pissed at is that you don't work for ASUS, you work for some other "chip manufacturer" and you're obviously biased on the subject.
2 MHz is not going to cause random crashes, The temperature varations in a normal household would be of more concern. And the interference from the 60Hz hum in a server room is likely to cause more problems.
And this would have nearly zero effect on your FPS in a game box. What this does is push the motherboard ever so slightly ahead in the benchmark wars, making it look like Asus is building top notch boards that just seem to keep edging out the competition some how.
I seriously hope you run some insane computer / OS like a realtime QNX or some other super hardcore / stable platform that they use to run nuclear reactors and medical devices with, because if you don't... you should be MUCH more worried about the random crashes coming from the combination of cheap hardware / bloated operating system than of the 2 MHz overclocked CPU or front side bus.
Has anyone put any thought into the idea that maybe they tested their configuration really well, and they found no problems what-so-ever. It's not like we're talking about ECS or some crap board manufacturer. ASUS generally makes quality stuff... if anyone should be overclocking by default, it's them!
Slashdot Mirror
This has already been done.
/etc/shadow. If the passwords start with $1$ that means it's MD5, if it says $2$ that's blowfish.
In case you're curious here's some info on the redhat mailing list about it.
Note that this message is from 2003, but still not a lot has been done.
It is possible though... you can check if your system uses md5 or blowfish by looking in
While this is definitely an informative post (and should remain modded so), it seems to give the impression you are suggesting that cracking won't work for OSX because it's not just a "simple" matter of decompiling / debug stepping through the raw assembler code.
Of course it's harder to do this at the OS/kernel level, although for those who know what they're doing it's really no more (or less) difficult than cracking games.
And actually many games these days come with highly HIGHLY sophisticated anti-piracy countermeasures that go WAY beyond what you've described above. Ie, StarForce is a good example. And do you remember the dongles of yesteryears? That stuff got pretty sophisticated too, with some programs having entire sections of code running through a hardware dongle decrypter!
Of course these schemes were reverse engineered and cracked nearly instantly (including StarForce).
You're kidding yourself if you think OSX won't be cracked in the same way.
In case you weren't implying such a thing, then never mind, I just got the impression you were from your post.
You're right it does, but it's an interesting question, one that I wouldn't have thought about enough to google myself.
Plus the thing about google is, all it does is find published articles, and most of it is marketing hype.
When you ask slashdot, you're asking because you want to know the geekly opinion, which is often quite a bit different, easier, and less annoying, than spending hours wading through internet fluff.
Informative post indeed.
Just thought I'd throw it out there that this assumes the kind of life we're used to is the only kind.
Although I suppose if we came into contact with radically different life forms, we might not even know they're there!
That was funny. :).
This isn't really generally true. Note I'm not calling you a liar; it's entirely possible that your dataset was just more suited to RAR.
Over the long haul bzip2 and 7-zip are definitely better than RAR.
See this page for some actual benchies if you're interested.
The apostrophe is only used to indicate possessives of nouns. See this page for a reference.
For the lazy, I quote: "Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals, including acronyms."
On a slightly more pressing issue than grammar, you really should quit your behavior of personal attacks in order to strengthen your ego.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone adopted the policy of wishing to have correct information, and not simply to be correct regardless of whether or not their information is?
There's no need to call someone names, even if they are wrong!
While a good thought, you're forgetting how worms propagate themselves.
Usually these days they go in through a buffer overflow in some network application (such as P2P clients).
The bottom line is it's really hard to tell what's a virus and what's not (viruses tend to disguise themselves).
That's why they're trying out this method. Yes it's got some problems, especially for the home user, but for corporate situations this might work.
It all depends on how smart their algorithm is.
Not at all!
The test is actually quite useful, it's the article that's not.
If you look at the av test publication data you'll see all sorts of great information.
The information I find of particular interest is in the column that's sorted by response time, especially the programs that didn't proactively react such as: ClamAV, F-Secure, Sophos, McAfee, Symantec... ie all the big guys.
The interesting thing about this (and these are the guys that don't give so many false positives as you are right -- you definitely need to avoid this).
The interesting thing is that out of all the big guys, Symantec comes up basically last!
The difference between say 3 minutes, or even 45 minutes and Symantec's 3 hours is huge! Depending on the virus 3-5 minutes may be all it needs to propagate through an entire company's network. But some are much slower, taking several hours.
Either way, the lower the response time the better!
Clearly you just wish to prove you're right. Really you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And those random links are exactly that... random.
/* copied from Imlib */
What did you think those links would do? Make you seem like you know what you're talking about.
Did you even read my last post?
Even though they may not be actually using the imlib library (which I said might be the case), the fast graphics code comes nearly verbatim from imlib (which is also exactly what I said).
Ie:
gdk-pixbuf-xlib-drawable.c:
io-tiff.c:/* Following code (almost) blatantly ripped from Imlib */
io-xbm.c: ripped from Imlib'' */
If you cared to even read what I wrote you'd know that what I was saying was the speed you see in gnome-terminal is mainly due to the efforts of the E team.
Yeah, widget drawing is certainly a problem. I mean it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a solution that can use both gtk, qt, and a custom themable widget set for the tabs, but still... it's a problem nonetheless.
As for tabs in current applications such as firefox, gnome-terminal, etc... they basically use the approach of running a separate process anyway.
But, having said that, you hit on the point of leaving the tabs to the apps where the designer has total control.
Is this a good thing? I really want to say yes, but I'm having a hard time convincing myself of it.
Consider for a moment if the previous problems could be solved... what if there was a consistent interface across all applications for tabs. You would know what key stroke makes and destroys a tab for every app. They would all look the same, the tabs would be in the same place, so your brain would be trained that much better to know where to look for tabs.
You've got some good points, and you're right, until those are solved tabs are much better left where they are now, in the apps.
But if it is possible to solve those, I still think a more global tab scheme would be a great thing.
Until then, I'm just happy to have tabs.
The things that made me switch to gnome-terminal:
- Tabs.
- Really good behavior. If I scroll back the buffer only jumps back to the end if I hit a key. Mouse selection can scroll the buffer if you want to select something more than a page long (even while the console is being written to).
- Clickable web and email links. I can even click things like clickme.com (without the www or http beginning) Yes it's a small thing, but it just adds to the overall polished feel of the program.
- Anti-aliased fonts. No Eterm does not do this. (This is a big one). I simply won't live without anti-aliasing these days. Yep it's slower, but it looks SOOO much better. Especially because in my older age I find I need to crank up the font size
:).
- Proper window title updates when used with "screen." I do a lot of background tasks in screen, and although it never bothered me that much that Eterm's title updates don't work properly, I realize now how much I was missing.
- Proper full-screen mode. This is especially awesome when combined with tabs.
- MASSIVE scroll back buffers (if desired).
That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a few other things too. I've been fully switched away from Eterm for a good year or so now.I'm certainly no gnome or gnome-term fan boy though. It has its problems too -- mainly bloat. It takes a second or two to load (whereas Eterm is instantaneous).
If the E guys were to do up a nice slick terminal I would switch back without hesitating.
You know this brings up an even bigger topic.
It really seems to me like tabs SHOULD be the responsibility of the WM. I mean, why build every app (since tabs are so trendy these days) with its own custom tab support. It doesn't make a lot of sense!
On the other hand, I've never seen a WM (including fluxbox, and ion) that can do tabs in a reasonable manner.
And about gnome-terminal being slow... yeah it really is. Especially compared to Eterm which is awesomely fast.
Maybe I'm wishing to have my cake and eat it too, but I really wish for some of gnome-terms functionality right inside Eterm (if not E itself). I have my suspicions that if the E team did, it would be without the bloating of gnome-term.
And what do you think pixbuf uses internally?
Imlib Description
Notice that the imlib project source is stored on gnome's servers?
They might have integrated the functionality by now (I'm not super up to date with the gnome libs), but the fast graphics code they have came from the E team.
Well that's cool...
The thing is, I bet if the E team did a next-gen terminal, it would support all of the things I like, AND do it as fast and resource friendly as you like.
I was like you too, until I got used to gnome-term... now I can't imagine living without tabs. I also am in the same camp as you. I have many terminals open spread across several desktops... now I have some that I can conveniently group together with tabs: say these 4 are dedicated to something on this server, this next 3 are editing and testing some config setup here, etc. Could be that I'm just getting old and can't keep track of things as good any more, but I sure find it helpful.
Anyway I'm not trying to convince you to switch or anything, I'm just trying to show you that maybe, just maybe, if it were done right, you would like a terminal that did these things and more.
I think he meant a new Eterm. Yes of course Eterm still runs, but it's horrendously outdated now compared to some of the more modern terminals (especially gnome-terminal and konsole).
Gnome-terminal has the added advantage of using imlib2 (which is what made Eterm so fast), and includes such nice features as tabs, psuedo-trans, HUGE scrollbacks, really nice mouse support, clickable web and email addresses (if any should appear in the console text)... and much more.
Eterm 0.9.x really just doesn't cut it anymore.
Well put. Unless you've been using it non stop for a year or so, you probably can't comment on its stability... unless it's to say that it is unstable.
Having said that, I've been using E17 on and off for about a year, and although I still wouldn't qualify myself able to comment on its stability, I will say this:
It feels solid. You know how you can just feel the difference? Like when you first tried OS/2 and compared it to Win 3.1... you didn't exactly know why, but you knew it was rock solid.
That's the way E17 feels.
I haven't had it crash on me, but I certainly wouldn't suggest people rush out to start using it as their main WM. It's just not ready yet. There are tons of features that still need to be implemented before it's usuable full time.
I look forward to it though, for those who like the E style, it's going to be awesome!
Dude, this is seriously one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time :).
:P.
You better patent it before I do!
Heh... yeah I can see how portable small scale wind power is a pretty stupid idea :).
... atleast something more convient than lightning, although I have to admit that would look (and sound) pretty awesome.
My university's campus has these solar powered parking meter things, and each one has a little solar panel on the top that tracks the sun. I think that's why I got it in my head about the angles, I just (mistakenly) assumed all solar energy would need such a mechanism.
But you're totally right, anytime I've ever seen a house with solar panels they don't move or anything.
I suppose someone just needs to come up with wireless power already!
Can you imagine a cubicle maze with lightning shooting out of the ceiling all the time!
Good point :).
I suppose, on second thought, it would generally be fairly inneffective anyway (even putting overheating issues aside). As far as I understand solar cells require they be oriented to within a specific degree range to the sun, which would mean you'd always have to have your laptop pointed a certain direction (and orientation).
I guess the add-on solar cell idea is really much more ideal.
Most laptops only use ~30W of power, hopefully less as time goes on... This makes portable solar cells an option.
I'm not really sure about wind power... but an interesting idea would be to make a "3-in-one" alternative laptop powerer.
You could have a 30W solar pack, and two small windmill things (maybe with detachable fins for easy carrying). The fans could double as hydro generators if you stick them in a river.
You know... for all those times you're next to a river with your laptop (and there is no wind).
I suppose another idea might be to incorporate solar cells into the case of laptop.
Alternative energy is no solution to the battery problem, but I still think it's a cool idea. With even just solar cells you could easily work outside all day without needing to change batteries.
I don't know how useful this would be indoors, but I could see even indoor lighting generating some power (hey it works for calculators)...
I'd definitely carry around a solar pack even if it only increased my run time by 2 hours, any less and I don't think it'd be worh it. But I'd be pretty stoked about it if I could sit outside (think BEACH) all day with a laptop. How sweet would that be?
In case anyone is interested, MSN messenger (including webcam support) has been able to run on Linux (under Wine) since version 6.2:
More Info
Also, basically every messenger client is currently working on voice and video support. This includes GAIM, aMsn, Kopete, and KMess (I know for certain of these, there are probably others).
It'll come, it's just gonna take a little time that's all.
I can see I hit a nerve. Personal attacks even! Relax man!
:).
I admit I didn't read TFA when I made my original post so I wasn't aware that they were talking about the actual bus speed (200MHz) and not the effective speed (which is usually what the industry uses when talking about FSB speeds) of 800MHz.
Either way it doesn't matter... even 1% off spec isn't a big enough deal to cause problems.
On the other hand... the chip timings I really don't know about. I have no experience in this area so I can't really say if that's libel to cause problems or not? It would certainly raise an eyebrow though.
The thing is... would Asus really do this to consumers if they didn't feel confident it wasn't going to cause problems? Hmmm, they might. It certainly wouldn't be out of character for most companies these days. But if it did cause problems, where is the evidence? Where are the reports of problems? All the review sites show pretty much nothing but content customers.
And here's something interesting: another review with screenshots, that show the FSB running at the proper 200MHz!? Have we been duped into believing a lie about a lie? Perhaps more important questions are in the works here. For one: should I ever believe anything posted on slashdot?
And while you ask, yes TV looks A LOT smoother than movies (to me). I can actually see movies flicker, which is (partly) why I've stopped going to the theatre.
Anyway... I do agree with you about the difference between say 55 and 60... you're right no one is going to visibly notice that. All I was trying to get at was that this is a more tangible number than the super small amounts of time that motherboard benchmarks are done in. Even though say 1/85th of a second is really damn fast, people can still grasp it.
That's all I was saying.
You're being pedantic and you know it.
Personal attacks are never a good way to show that you know what you're talking about. All it does is tell people you're insecure.
Wait, so on one hand, the overclocking doens't provide a measurable speed increase for games. But then somehow it *does* make a measurable difference in benchmarks.
You're forgetting how they do motherboard benching. The differences are usually so small that even a tiny leap in performance *looks* big on the graphs, when really it's not.
The funny thing is, all people care about is the look of a graph, not its actual content.
The good thing about game benchmarks is that FPS is a pretty tangible thing to people. When something is 3 or 5 FPS slower than something else, that's a HUGE noticeable difference.
I know the statement I made sounded contradictory, but it's really not.
About the 60Hz hum... it was MEANT to be silly. The thing is, your statements about chips being run 2 MHz out of spec is even sillier!
2 MHz on an 800 MHz front side bus is 0.25% out of "spec." If you look at the chip specifications for *any* of the chips on the board you'll see clearly laid out in their specifications they they are generally rated to run at what the spceifications say plus and minus 5% (usually the norm, but it ranges anywhere from 1-15 or so).
You obviously have no understanding of the manufacturing process, or how these things are made. You see they have to spec them for the lowest common denominator, at negative 65 degrees celcius AND plus 70 degrees (storage temps usually range from -65 to +150 celcius).
When you select a board from a company that uses the reject parts you get equipment that you definitely don't want to operate outside of the norm, but if you spend a little extra on something with decent componentry 0.25% is nothing at all.
And that's just for front side bus, if this is CPU overclocking we're talking it's closer to 0.05%.
The actual operating speed of your processor probably varies that much in any given day just through heat and other factors!
Seriously before you whip out some "faraday cage" science just to sound like you know what you're talking about, you should really think about what you're saying.
The thing you're pissed at is that you don't work for ASUS, you work for some other "chip manufacturer" and you're obviously biased on the subject.
2 MHz is not going to cause random crashes, The temperature varations in a normal household would be of more concern. And the interference from the 60Hz hum in a server room is likely to cause more problems.
And this would have nearly zero effect on your FPS in a game box. What this does is push the motherboard ever so slightly ahead in the benchmark wars, making it look like Asus is building top notch boards that just seem to keep edging out the competition some how.
I seriously hope you run some insane computer / OS like a realtime QNX or some other super hardcore / stable platform that they use to run nuclear reactors and medical devices with, because if you don't... you should be MUCH more worried about the random crashes coming from the combination of cheap hardware / bloated operating system than of the 2 MHz overclocked CPU or front side bus.
Has anyone put any thought into the idea that maybe they tested their configuration really well, and they found no problems what-so-ever. It's not like we're talking about ECS or some crap board manufacturer. ASUS generally makes quality stuff... if anyone should be overclocking by default, it's them!