One thing that I learned well as a long time software developer is to NEVER use any Borland products. There are a few good reasons for that:
* Borland has a good history of screwing up their developers. They simply are not trustable in long-term. As an example, they recenly cancelled their C++ builder product. I can sense the pain of C++ Builder users.
* Their products are way tooooooooo expensive. A single license for a Pro version of their software generally costs on the order of $3,000. Microsoft on the other hand has a very nice pricing policy for developers. I can get VC Pro for a few hundred dollars. Moreover, I can get an MSDN Universal Subs. for less than $2,000 - This includes nearly all MS products (except their games) and comes with about 20-30 DVDs!!!
* Number of developers that use Borland products is much much less then number of developers that use MS products or some other open source products like eclipse, gcc,..etc. Because of that, the number of add-on tools and solutions available for Borland products are generally very few.
Well, I really am getting sick of this Apple fan-boyism. What is up with that? People here scratch their heads all day long and try to find some calculations that may show that Apple higher than the others even though the comparison is a just an apples to oranges comparison.
One writes that Flops per $ for apple's are better? How the hell can they make a real comparison? Why dont they look at the Flops per CPU? What are the other hardware in those systems? Why dont they compare all the machines? Do they have the same HDD/RAM/..etc other parts. If not (and it is not) this is a totally useless comparison.
Now another fan boy writes that 3600 2.0 GHz G5's beat 4000 1.7 GHz Itanium 2s. What a comparison! My god!
One other fan boy writes that AMD Opterons beats the crap out of Intel systems. Looking at the link he provided, it is pretty clear that Intel Itaniums beat the crap out AMD systems and then the fan boy defends himself by saying that AMDs are cheaper!
Oh come on now people, be a little more objective! The article says the following: A total of 320 systems are now using Intel processors. Six months ago there were 287 Intel-based systems on the list and one year ago only 189. # The second most common processor family is the IBM Power processor (54 systems), ahead of PA Risc processors (48) and AMD processors (31). # At present, IBM and Hewlett-Packard sell the bulk of systems at all performance levels of the TOP500.
These are much more important numbers than some uber-geek-fan boys calculations. It is apparent that Intel has increased its percentae *A LOT*. AMD also started to putting many systems into top 500. In my opinion, Apple's success in this list is MUCH MUCH LESS than Intel's or AMD's or IBM's or HP's successes.
Be a little more logical, open minded, less fanatic people. Apple is just a freaking computer like any other computers around. It is not some sort of a super/splendid/magnificent/God-Like computer.
Actually, "i" is commonly used to differentiate between two different dimensions in the physical world - so, it can be seen as a law of the nature in many cases.
But for Windows there already are many many automation tools like this - they are far more advanced than Automator as far as i see from the screenshots;) (e.g. Macro Angel, Robotask, Automate, WinScheduler, Macro Magic,...etc).
On the other hand, I think this is a great move from Apple to bring more functionality to the core OS. And the GUI looks so nice as always with any Apple software. Apple is doing a really really nice job in their OS - I just wish that I had the freedom to choose my hardware (I have no aim to open a can of worms - i know apple wants to earn from hardware - but this doesnt prevent me from wishing;))
I completely agree that MS is not innovating - however, I do not agree with the fact that this is killing them. They became this huge by not innovating, but by simply catching up with others. They let the others do the innovation first, and then copy all the feautures, put more decoration on it, and market it in a better way.
Re:The java generics system is a joke
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I did some tests and the benchmarks are really interesting. C# performs incredibly fast compared to Java. I didnt expect that much difference - may be I am doing something wrong...
Java Code: public class Test1 {
public static void main (String [] args) {
ArrayList<Integer> l = new ArrayList<Integer> ();
System.out.println ("Started.");
for (int i = 0; i < 60; i++) { for (int j = 0; j < 1000000; j++) l.add (new Integer (j)); l.clear(); }
System.out.println ("Ended."); } }
C# Code: class Program { static void Main (string [] args) { System.Collections.Generic.List<int> l = new List<int> ();
Console.WriteLine ("Started.");
for (int i = 0; i < 60; i++) { for (int j = 0; j < 1000000; j++) l.Add (j); l.Clear (); }
Console.WriteLine ("Ended."); } }
Java took 23 seconds to complete on an IBM Thinkpad T30 with Pentium 4M 1.8 Ghz. C# took 1.5 seconds.
First, I want to say that I am not an expert C# or Java programmer. I use C++ mostly, and I really dont know which collections are best suitable for this job in each language. I used LinkedList and ArrayList in java and ArrayList performed 2 times faster than LinkedList. Similarly, I tried LinkedList and List in C# and List performed better than LinkedList - so I compared ArrayList in Java with List in C#.
Also, instead of adding 1,000,000 items in a list, I tried adding 10,000,000 - but java gave me an out of memory exception. I tried it with 2,000,000 and I got the exact same error. C# worked fine with larger numbers - I tried C# with 50,000,000 and it worked fine.
Gee, then my camera maker (Sony DSC-F828) must be a real idiot for making a 2 times bigger RAW then the required size. You know what, you should work for them as a consultant. You will be a great value add for huge company like Sony which cannot even think of using just 12 bits for each pixel.
Sorry my bad. I simply multiplied the parent's JPEG file size with 7 because in my camera, the raws are about 7 times larger.
Now let me do the math again: With my 8 MP camera, one raw file is about 25 MB - so, I assume Canon will produce RAWs of size 50 MB. If you add the JPEG on top of this, it will be around 58 MB. 58x8 = 464 Megabits / 25 Mbps = 18.5 seconds. This is not very bad at all. But not fast either.
Please note that 54 Mbps of 802.11g is the physical layer data rate. In the application layer, you can reach to about 25 Mbps at most (because of MAC layer overhead, contention protocol,...etc)
Compressing a photo to 1/6 its size in storage space can be done with very little degradation.
Hmm, let me see: Somebody pays about $7,000 for a camera to get the absoulte best quality that he can get, and then he will reduce the quality of his JPEGs to save some space. Seems too dumb to me.
Moreover, JPEG is not very commonly used with 1Ds. The most commonly used format is RAW which is about 7 timer larger. Now, if you do the math with RAW, and if you do it correctly by putting the overhead of 802.11g correctly, you will get
336,000,000x7/25,000,000 = 94 Seconds. So, it will take more than 1.5 MINUTES to transfer a single RAW file - which seems pretty useless to me. The best is to get extra flash cards and dont transfer the pictures until you are back home!
No person other than an AMD fanboy says something this stupid. And since you are already an AMD fan boy, I dont think that you are a loss to Intel.
Re:basic... very basic.
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 0
I dont know how you come up with the $350 price. When I try to build the configuration above, I get a much higher number:
NOTE: I chose the lowest prices from PriceWatch.com
Processor: Intel Celeron Processor 2 GHz = $60
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (pre-installed) = $199
Motherboard: $40
Memory: 256MB RAM = $35
Hard Drive: 40GB, ATA 100, 5400 rpm = $31
Optical Drive: 52x CD-ROM = $15
Network: 10/100MB Ethernet = $10
Modem: 56K v.92 = $10
Monitor: 17" CRT monitor (minimum 15.7" viewable) = $74
Printer: Lexmark Color Inkjet Printer = $40
Peripherals: Standard Multimedia Keyboard, Two-button Wheel Mouse, Speakers = $20
So, the price of a computer like this will be around $530. Not $350. Now you do your calculations on top of this price, you will see that you loose around $150 by going with a cheaper ISP!
The followings are the 802.11 standards that I know of:
802.11b (The FIRST ONE - 2.4 GHz - 11 Mbps)
802.11a (5 GHz - 54 Mbps)
802.11g (2.4 Ghz - 11 Mbps)
802.11n (hopefully will be 200 Mbps)
802.11e (MAC layer changes to support quality of service such as VoIP, video,..etc)
802.11i (security)
802.11s (MESH)
802.11h (radar detection in Europe)
802.11k (interference detection, environment measurements,..etc)
802.11n is still in its very early phases. There is not even one thing detemined. All companies will sumbit their proposals before the end of this month and then the voting will be done on September. There are many proposals and all of them are different. The only thing known about is the fact that it will be high speed (~200 Mbps with multiple antennas).
So, I think telling that Belkin has a pre-standard card is just wrong and seems like a marketing lie from Belkin. There is not even one line of written draft for 802.11n yet! This is just a card based on their proprietary methods and it will FOR SURE be incompatible with the standard when it will come (which probably will take 2 years from today).
Merging Tivo and Apple seems like a dream of an Apple fanboy with no reason. What good a company like Apple can bring to Tivo. It can only make things worse by making everything proprietary and useless.
Also, TivoToGo will allow you to transfer your videos to your PC/laptop. It is not that Tivo is unable to implement that, it is just that they dont have the muscles to fight with the damn RIAA and they waited for approval for a long time. Now they have the approval, they offically told that TivoTogo will be ready pretty soon.
Wake me up when Windows gets multiple desktops, a feature supported by competing operating systems for at least a decade.
Geee, what an innovation - wake me up when that is a useful feature at all. I have been using Linux for a long time at work, but I dont remember using multiple desktops more than once a week.
Moreover, MS has freely available Powertoys for windows, which has that useless multiple desktops innovation in it.
What's the problem? You can run GNOME apps under KDE and vice-versa. Hmm, let me see. There in lies the dilemma my friend - they are god damn inconsistent GUIs.
Which Windows? Windows ME? Windows 2000? Windows XP Home? Windows XP Professional?
If it is hard you to choose a windows version (hint: use the LATEST version, which is XP), how can you manage to live with Linux???
I was under the impression most newbie-friendly distros had a clear default. You are a person that cant even choose a windows version. You are the BIGGEST newbie!
BECAUSE there is no 64 bit P4 yet Mr. Smart@ss. What a bunch of whiners! Why Xeon performed better than Athlon? Why MS does not open Windows source? Why in the hell IE crashes? etc etc. Stop whining, and produce a better one and then talk...
Just FYI, the operating frequency of the radio has *NOTHING* to do with its speed. At whatever the frequency the radio operates on, it uses a fixed amount of frequency width (which is on the order of 30 MHz not GigaHz). So, if I am on 10 GHz, it means that I am allocating frequencies between (10GHz-15MHz) and (10GHz+15MHz). It doesnt mean that I have a CPU running at 10 GHz. Operating speed of these radios are based on reception power which is generally inversely (and exponentially) proportional with the distance from the destination.
So anyway, there is nothing common between a radio and a CPU except the fact that the radios genereally include a small CPU inside them for their computation purposes.
Well, I honestly dont understand what people like in the blood sucking Longhorn. It just just another MS marketing crap. The best version of Windows is 2000 IMHO - XP is fine to but man I hate the new look. Me still thinks that WinXP is just a new theme for Win2k.
Anyway, coming back to Longhorn, I installed the Beta version of it and I think it is just another theme for window. Well, may be they changed the API, core,..etc; but I dont think that developpers will write Longhorn specific programs for at least 8-9 years (until Longhorn has a large customer base). So, Longhorn will stay as a new cool theme (which consumes a whole CPU alone even when idle) for quite a long time.
I think XP is the last Windows version that I paid for. Longhorn will make my switch to Linux complete;)
Funny you are! Get a clue about programming and then unpack your useless FUDs. Even the source code is closed, it is pretty easy to find out every damn API call that the SQL server is doing - there are very powerful assembly level debuggers that can tell you all the information that you need.
I dont like MS that much, but I certainly like clueless idiots like you less!
I have a web site that I am selling automation programs for Windows. Thus all my visitors are Windows users.
According to the web site stats, on September, October and December, 99.99% of all users use an IE based browser (IE, MyIE, Avant Browser,...etc).
Not looking at June 2004's stats, I see that 4% of the visitors are Mozilla users and 2% of the users are Opera users. If it grows like this, I bet IE will go down pretty soon.
IE, YOU ARE GOING DOWN!!
Well, you obviously dont know that hWnd's are not statically assigned handles and they change on different conputers or on different runs. So, your trojan is a useless trojan and you dont know a squad about windows programming:P
Since Google is the one who get all the profit from the work of this Orkut person, google should be liable for eveything that he does too. So, it seems pretty fair to me that Google is the one who got sued.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon's Music Store - DRM free, high quality MP3's cheaper than iTunes prices http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Music-Download/b?ie=UTF8&node=163856011
One thing that I learned well as a long time software developer is to NEVER use any Borland products. There are a few good reasons for that:
..etc. Because of that, the number of add-on tools and solutions available for Borland products are generally very few.
* Borland has a good history of screwing up their developers. They simply are not trustable in long-term. As an example, they recenly cancelled their C++ builder product. I can sense the pain of C++ Builder users.
* Their products are way tooooooooo expensive. A single license for a Pro version of their software generally costs on the order of $3,000. Microsoft on the other hand has a very nice pricing policy for developers. I can get VC Pro for a few hundred dollars. Moreover, I can get an MSDN Universal Subs. for less than $2,000 - This includes nearly all MS products (except their games) and comes with about 20-30 DVDs!!!
* Number of developers that use Borland products is much much less then number of developers that use MS products or some other open source products like eclipse, gcc,
Mustafa Demirhan
Well, I really am getting sick of this Apple fan-boyism. What is up with that? People here scratch their heads all day long and try to find some calculations that may show that Apple higher than the others even though the comparison is a just an apples to oranges comparison. One writes that Flops per $ for apple's are better? How the hell can they make a real comparison? Why dont they look at the Flops per CPU? What are the other hardware in those systems? Why dont they compare all the machines? Do they have the same HDD/RAM/..etc other parts. If not (and it is not) this is a totally useless comparison.
Now another fan boy writes that 3600 2.0 GHz G5's beat 4000 1.7 GHz Itanium 2s. What a comparison! My god!
One other fan boy writes that AMD Opterons beats the crap out of Intel systems. Looking at the link he provided, it is pretty clear that Intel Itaniums beat the crap out AMD systems and then the fan boy defends himself by saying that AMDs are cheaper!
Oh come on now people, be a little more objective! The article says the following: A total of 320 systems are now using Intel processors. Six months ago there were 287 Intel-based systems on the list and one year ago only 189. # The second most common processor family is the IBM Power processor (54 systems), ahead of PA Risc processors (48) and AMD processors (31). # At present, IBM and Hewlett-Packard sell the bulk of systems at all performance levels of the TOP500.
These are much more important numbers than some uber-geek-fan boys calculations. It is apparent that Intel has increased its percentae *A LOT*. AMD also started to putting many systems into top 500. In my opinion, Apple's success in this list is MUCH MUCH LESS than Intel's or AMD's or IBM's or HP's successes.
Be a little more logical, open minded, less fanatic people. Apple is just a freaking computer like any other computers around. It is not some sort of a super/splendid/magnificent/God-Like computer.
Actually, "i" is commonly used to differentiate between two different dimensions in the physical world - so, it can be seen as a law of the nature in many cases.
But for Windows there already are many many automation tools like this - they are far more advanced than Automator as far as i see from the screenshots ;) (e.g. Macro Angel, Robotask, Automate, WinScheduler, Macro Magic, ...etc).
On the other hand, I think this is a great move from Apple to bring more functionality to the core OS. And the GUI looks so nice as always with any Apple software. Apple is doing a really really nice job in their OS - I just wish that I had the freedom to choose my hardware (I have no aim to open a can of worms - i know apple wants to earn from hardware - but this doesnt prevent me from wishing ;))
but it is not innovating and that is killing it.
I completely agree that MS is not innovating - however, I do not agree with the fact that this is killing them. They became this huge by not innovating, but by simply catching up with others. They let the others do the innovation first, and then copy all the feautures, put more decoration on it, and market it in a better way.
I did some tests and the benchmarks are really interesting. C# performs incredibly fast compared to Java. I didnt expect that much difference - may be I am doing something wrong...
Java Code:
public class Test1 {
public static void main (String [] args) {
ArrayList<Integer> l = new ArrayList<Integer> ();
System.out.println ("Started.");
for (int i = 0; i < 60; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 1000000; j++)
l.add (new Integer (j));
l.clear();
}
System.out.println ("Ended.");
}
}
C# Code:
class Program
{
static void Main (string [] args)
{
System.Collections.Generic.List<int> l = new List<int> ();
Console.WriteLine ("Started.");
for (int i = 0; i < 60; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 1000000; j++)
l.Add (j);
l.Clear ();
}
Console.WriteLine ("Ended.");
}
}
Java took 23 seconds to complete on an IBM Thinkpad T30 with Pentium 4M 1.8 Ghz.
C# took 1.5 seconds.
First, I want to say that I am not an expert C# or Java programmer. I use C++ mostly, and I really dont know which collections are best suitable for this job in each language. I used LinkedList and ArrayList in java and ArrayList performed 2 times faster than LinkedList. Similarly, I tried LinkedList and List in C# and List performed better than LinkedList - so I compared ArrayList in Java with List in C#.
Also, instead of adding 1,000,000 items in a list, I tried adding 10,000,000 - but java gave me an out of memory exception. I tried it with 2,000,000 and I got the exact same error. C# worked fine with larger numbers - I tried C# with 50,000,000 and it worked fine.
Great post and great list!
Here are a few more very good freeware programs that I use:
Instead of Winzip or 7-zip, i prefer IZArc. It supports all compression formats that I know of and it has a great interface.
A other programs that like very much are Starter, Agent Ransack, BHODemon, PowerToy Calculator, SyncBack, The Regex Coach and Eclipse IDE.
Gee, then my camera maker (Sony DSC-F828) must be a real idiot for making a 2 times bigger RAW then the required size. You know what, you should work for them as a consultant. You will be a great value add for huge company like Sony which cannot even think of using just 12 bits for each pixel.
Sorry my bad. I simply multiplied the parent's JPEG file size with 7 because in my camera, the raws are about 7 times larger. Now let me do the math again: With my 8 MP camera, one raw file is about 25 MB - so, I assume Canon will produce RAWs of size 50 MB. If you add the JPEG on top of this, it will be around 58 MB. 58x8 = 464 Megabits / 25 Mbps = 18.5 seconds. This is not very bad at all. But not fast either. Please note that 54 Mbps of 802.11g is the physical layer data rate. In the application layer, you can reach to about 25 Mbps at most (because of MAC layer overhead, contention protocol, ...etc)
Compressing a photo to 1/6 its size in storage space can be done with very little degradation. Hmm, let me see: Somebody pays about $7,000 for a camera to get the absoulte best quality that he can get, and then he will reduce the quality of his JPEGs to save some space. Seems too dumb to me. Moreover, JPEG is not very commonly used with 1Ds. The most commonly used format is RAW which is about 7 timer larger. Now, if you do the math with RAW, and if you do it correctly by putting the overhead of 802.11g correctly, you will get 336,000,000x7/25,000,000 = 94 Seconds. So, it will take more than 1.5 MINUTES to transfer a single RAW file - which seems pretty useless to me. The best is to get extra flash cards and dont transfer the pictures until you are back home!
No person other than an AMD fanboy says something this stupid. And since you are already an AMD fan boy, I dont think that you are a loss to Intel.
I dont know how you come up with the $350 price. When I try to build the configuration above, I get a much higher number:
NOTE: I chose the lowest prices from PriceWatch.com Processor: Intel Celeron Processor 2 GHz = $60 Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (pre-installed) = $199 Motherboard: $40 Memory: 256MB RAM = $35 Hard Drive: 40GB, ATA 100, 5400 rpm = $31 Optical Drive: 52x CD-ROM = $15 Network: 10/100MB Ethernet = $10 Modem: 56K v.92 = $10 Monitor: 17" CRT monitor (minimum 15.7" viewable) = $74 Printer: Lexmark Color Inkjet Printer = $40 Peripherals: Standard Multimedia Keyboard, Two-button Wheel Mouse, Speakers = $20
So, the price of a computer like this will be around $530. Not $350. Now you do your calculations on top of this price, you will see that you loose around $150 by going with a cheaper ISP!
The followings are the 802.11 standards that I know of:
..etc)
..etc)
;)
802.11b (The FIRST ONE - 2.4 GHz - 11 Mbps)
802.11a (5 GHz - 54 Mbps)
802.11g (2.4 Ghz - 11 Mbps)
802.11n (hopefully will be 200 Mbps)
802.11e (MAC layer changes to support quality of service such as VoIP, video,
802.11i (security)
802.11s (MESH)
802.11h (radar detection in Europe)
802.11k (interference detection, environment measurements,
Let me know if I missed any
802.11n is still in its very early phases. There is not even one thing detemined. All companies will sumbit their proposals before the end of this month and then the voting will be done on September. There are many proposals and all of them are different. The only thing known about is the fact that it will be high speed (~200 Mbps with multiple antennas).
So, I think telling that Belkin has a pre-standard card is just wrong and seems like a marketing lie from Belkin. There is not even one line of written draft for 802.11n yet! This is just a card based on their proprietary methods and it will FOR SURE be incompatible with the standard when it will come (which probably will take 2 years from today).
Merging Tivo and Apple seems like a dream of an Apple fanboy with no reason. What good a company like Apple can bring to Tivo. It can only make things worse by making everything proprietary and useless. Also, TivoToGo will allow you to transfer your videos to your PC/laptop. It is not that Tivo is unable to implement that, it is just that they dont have the muscles to fight with the damn RIAA and they waited for approval for a long time. Now they have the approval, they offically told that TivoTogo will be ready pretty soon.
Wake me up when Windows gets multiple desktops, a feature supported by competing operating systems for at least a decade.
Geee, what an innovation - wake me up when that is a useful feature at all. I have been using Linux for a long time at work, but I dont remember using multiple desktops more than once a week. Moreover, MS has freely available Powertoys for windows, which has that useless multiple desktops innovation in it.
What's the problem? You can run GNOME apps under KDE and vice-versa.
Hmm, let me see. There in lies the dilemma my friend - they are god damn inconsistent GUIs.
Which Windows? Windows ME? Windows 2000? Windows XP Home? Windows XP Professional?
If it is hard you to choose a windows version (hint: use the LATEST version, which is XP), how can you manage to live with Linux???
I was under the impression most newbie-friendly distros had a clear default.
You are a person that cant even choose a windows version. You are the BIGGEST newbie!
BECAUSE there is no 64 bit P4 yet Mr. Smart@ss. What a bunch of whiners! Why Xeon performed better than Athlon? Why MS does not open Windows source? Why in the hell IE crashes? etc etc. Stop whining, and produce a better one and then talk...
Just FYI, the operating frequency of the radio has *NOTHING* to do with its speed. At whatever the frequency the radio operates on, it uses a fixed amount of frequency width (which is on the order of 30 MHz not GigaHz). So, if I am on 10 GHz, it means that I am allocating frequencies between (10GHz-15MHz) and (10GHz+15MHz). It doesnt mean that I have a CPU running at 10 GHz. Operating speed of these radios are based on reception power which is generally inversely (and exponentially) proportional with the distance from the destination. So anyway, there is nothing common between a radio and a CPU except the fact that the radios genereally include a small CPU inside them for their computation purposes.
Well, I honestly dont understand what people like in the blood sucking Longhorn. It just just another MS marketing crap. The best version of Windows is 2000 IMHO - XP is fine to but man I hate the new look. Me still thinks that WinXP is just a new theme for Win2k. Anyway, coming back to Longhorn, I installed the Beta version of it and I think it is just another theme for window. Well, may be they changed the API, core, ..etc; but I dont think that developpers will write Longhorn specific programs for at least 8-9 years (until Longhorn has a large customer base). So, Longhorn will stay as a new cool theme (which consumes a whole CPU alone even when idle) for quite a long time.
I think XP is the last Windows version that I paid for. Longhorn will make my switch to Linux complete ;)
Funny you are! Get a clue about programming and then unpack your useless FUDs. Even the source code is closed, it is pretty easy to find out every damn API call that the SQL server is doing - there are very powerful assembly level debuggers that can tell you all the information that you need. I dont like MS that much, but I certainly like clueless idiots like you less!
I have a web site that I am selling automation programs for Windows. Thus all my visitors are Windows users. According to the web site stats, on September, October and December, 99.99% of all users use an IE based browser (IE, MyIE, Avant Browser, ...etc).
Not looking at June 2004's stats, I see that 4% of the visitors are Mozilla users and 2% of the users are Opera users. If it grows like this, I bet IE will go down pretty soon.
IE, YOU ARE GOING DOWN!!
Well, you obviously dont know that hWnd's are not statically assigned handles and they change on different conputers or on different runs. So, your trojan is a useless trojan and you dont know a squad about windows programming :P
Since Google is the one who get all the profit from the work of this Orkut person, google should be liable for eveything that he does too. So, it seems pretty fair to me that Google is the one who got sued.