How does minimizing a program / using less active memory cause less power draw? I would imagine that the power you save would be from not having to render the visualizations, resulting in less CPU work. Memory chips aren't going to be shut off or anything like that.
Thing is, though, 802.11a/b/g/n clients usually "associate" with an access point. This is after the client receives a "beacon" from the access point, basically advertising its existence.
So, the access point tells the area that it's broadcasting, and the client sends an association request, and the access point associates with the client. Assuming that that association was gained by the client in a non-malicious manner (no MAC spoofing, no WEP cracking, etc,) it sounds a lot like the system was configured to give any client permission automatically.
When installing Windows, I make a partition specifically for the swap file and temp files. That way they don't add to the fragmentation mess of the OS partition.
Speaking of which, why does Windows still use a variable sized swap file? I lock it down to 2x RAM or 4GB. Whichever is larger. I do not want fragmentation in the swap file. I'd prefer not to need one, but that's another story.
I suspect that if there were a significant advantage, this would have easy to do in OS X - if not the default. Windows lets you manipulate the swap file size, location, etc, and turn it off together. but OS X only really lets you control whether the swap file is encrypted or not. With 4GB of RAM in OS X, I've got about 1GB free RAM and 1GB of swap in use (out of 2GB total.)
You do realize that Dell, Lenovo, and HP Compaq have at least two separate product lines each: one for consumer, and one for business? And that they usually have different support?
Windows 95 did not offer preemptive multitasking originally AFAIK
It did. However, it did not feature protected memory (and neither did Windows 98).
Only when DirectX 4 (original 95 version being 3) came about with the other enhancements did preemptive multitasking become a true Windows reality.
DirectX has nothing to do with it. The first version of Windows NT, Windows NT 3.1, had both preemptive multitasking and protected memory.
When I compared 95 vs 98 side by side on identical machines, 98 ran multiple programs better, whereas on the 95 machine they ran horribly when loaded concurrently, so YMMV.
An interesting anecdote, but not relevant to whether either operating system has protected memory (nope!) or preemptive multitasking (yep!).
I wouldn't personally call Win95 the start of Microsoft's preemptive multitasking, nor 98. NT 3.51 was the REAL start of that, IMHO.
Preemptive multitasking isn't a matter of opinion. Windows NT 3.1 was the first Windows NT version and it had preemptive multitasking. Windows 95 a few years later was the first "classic" Windows version with preemptive multitasking.
I don't get the argument that high speed networks are more error prone. Following this rationale, this would mean that our broadband or wifi network would be much less reliable than a good old modem.
Yes; high speed wireless networks have extensive error correction. For example, 54mbit/sec is the maximum raw data rate for 802.11a/g, and doesn't consider error correction. This is why you don't actually get those speeds in real-world applications.
Also, I fail to see why EDGE technlogy would be less prone to radio interference and reverberation than UMTS
EDGE is more prone to interference & reverberation. The things that CDMA did better than GSM/TDMA ten years ago still apply; WCDMA-based UMTS is better at dealing with adverse RF conditions than GSM/EDGE..
I don't know if EDGE retains the same principle
It does. EDGE is just a way to pack more bits into the same timeslot.
The author makes the argument that while 3G networks have more bandwidth than EDGE (they can transfer data at a faster rate), that higher bandwidth comes at a cost of higher latency (the time it takes for the transfer to begin) and more power consumption. He, correctly, points out that the higher latency of a 3G network can make your browsing experience slower than EDGE depending on the type of content you're browsing.
The author is right about 3G networks having more bandwidth and higher power consumption, but 3G has *much less latency.
The article is full of bad assumptions and his reasoning for 3G's higher power consumption is faulty.
If UMTS/HSDPA is worse, I'm not looking forward to it.
It's not worse. It's much bette than EDGE.
My Verizon CDMA card was much "faster" and more responsive than the EDGE card due to the fact that one gets an actual connection through an IP number in CDMA.
That has little to do with it. CDMA is simply a superior technology (1xRTT has lower latency than EDGE, even though it has less total bandwidth; EVDO blows both away). HSDPA is a lot better than EDGE & directly comparable to EVDO.
It took me 21 seconds on my Samsung SGH-i607 Blackjack, using HSDPA & the Opera browser set to desktop rendering mode (so it shows the same page as desktop Opera would)
It didn't start downloading until 5 seconds into that for some reason, and it was browseable after 16 seconds or so.
(The page took about 4 seconds to load on my ADSL line)
While 15 mbps is better than AT&T U-verse (is still copper-based VDSL), it's not as good as the speeds offered by Fios.
IIRC AT&T's U-verse currently runs at ~26 mbit total (combined, TV and internet). They plan to upgrade that to 40 mbit or so IIRC, if they haven't done it already. Fios is fiber-based and has much more bandwidth -- I think Verizon offers up to 30/5 generally and 50/10 in some areas. From a TV standpoint, Fios is superior since it's an actual HFC-style cable television service, with TV coming to the home via the fiber and being sent over coax inside (compared to U-verse's IPTV)
Time Warner Cable has 15 mbit service available today in a lot of markets, for much cheaper than Speakeasy.
AT&T (formerly Ameritech) has remote terminals all over the place, in subrurbia. I can't remember anyone not being able to get DSL for the past few years because of distance from the DSLAM... although someone was denied new service due to lack of capacity (at the RT).
Well, yes, there are satellite internet services marketed and intended for domestic consumer use in countries like the USA, Canada, and the United Kingdom. However, there are a lot of services marketed internationally for entire regions or continents. These services vary in cost, intended use, and performance, but they're out there. Dishes shouldn't be a probelm:Satellite dishes in Yangoon So Internet shouldn't be a problem for anyone who is willing to pay the hardware & service costs and able to get the equipment and pay the bills.
As an alternative, if the hardware made its way into the right hands and someone kept sending payment, a satellite phone terminal with data access would work as well.
Satellite dishes do find their way into places where they are illegal, such as Tehran (relatively common, at least in the past), Cuba (not as common), or North Korea (much less common).
USB 2 is 480 megabits/sec max; SATA 150 is 150 megabytes/sec max; SATA 300 is 300 megabytes/sec max. A single drive will easily saturate USB 2 or FireWire 400 and some newer drives can saturate FireWire 800.
The SATA bus can carry data from more than one drive; port multipliers will connect up to 5 drives directly, or a SATA device could be some sort of hardware RAID implementation that presents itself as a single drive to the host. (My maximum throughput with SATA has been 120 megabytes/sec on a supposedly SATA 300 link with a PCI Express x1 host adatper, with 5 drives that easily sustain 60 megabytes/sec each.)
So, USB 3, at 4.8 gigabits/sec, can be saturated easily with today's SATA devices, even if it takes more than a few drives.
Verizon is treating FiOS TV as though it is cable, so it is negotiating local franchise agreements. ATT says Uverse is not cable, so they are installing it without getting local approvals first.
Fios acts like traditional cable TV; it's a HFC (hybrid fiber coax) network that runs fiber to the home and converts it to coax. It supports standard NTSC tuners as well as CableCard.
AT&T's U-verse does not act like cable; it's an IPTV service that requires IPTV set top boxes and operates using limited bandwidth. Therefore, a STB is required. (I believe they currently support only 1 HD stream at a time, although this is supposed to be raised to 2 soon.)
You still need a panel with 1080 lines to display true 1080i but AFAIK, all 1080i panels use 720p downscaling so the only way to have full 1080 resolution is to deinterlace to 1080p either at the source or within the set.
There is no such thing as a 1080i panel (although there are 1080i CRTs and possibly projection TVs). There are 1280x720, 1366x768, and 1920x1080 panels. Since 1080i is one of the ATSC standard resolutions, and there is a lot of older HD hardware that will not scale/deinterlace 1080i signals to 720p, nearly all of these displays will have deinterlacing/scaling capability for 1080i support.
My 1920x1080 monitor has no problem deinterlacing 1080i (okay, so it doesn't do a great job... but it's definitely not scaling to 720p first, and it does a better job than a cable box.)
Selling TVs that do not have TV tuners would almost certainly constitute false advertising so they are not going to be called TVs - in Canada, a TV is defined as a video display device with tuning capability. As with CableCard above, exactly NONE of the (TV) sets I have looked at so far fail to feature at least NTSC+ATSC tuners.
A TV without any sort of tuner is usually called a monitor. Sometimes they throw in "HD Ready" too.
Westinghouse's HD monitors are LVM-xxxx, and their HDTVs are LTV-xxxx.
Every HDTV for the past 2+ years has come with a CableCard slot. The problem is not with TVs without CableCard slots but with cable companies that only support CableCard because they're legally obligated to do so.
There were more HDTVs with CableCard support in June 2006 then there are today.
It's a good thing that you have been researching these things. It's not like you can get an ATSC tuner for under $100 brand new today, and it's highly unlikely that the price will fall as more competition enters the market and the FCC's vouchers are given to consumers. Right???
There isn't going to be a whole lot of demand for this hardware until the shutdown is almost here. Perhaps a few months before.
Well, from some of the people I've met, I'd say that those that make ethically wrong decisions at age 21 aren't going to somehow change significantly 10-20 years later. They may have been around long enough that they might not care about other people so much, but the person who wants to snoop around someone else's web history when he forgets to loxk his workstation could be 20 or 50.
Personally, I never thought of this kind of thing until a few months after I started woring full-time in IT. Around that time is when I started to understand the values of processes and such. But after that, things seemed pretty simple.
Not a bad idea, except GCC (a GNU project) is the primary compiler for most open-source Unixlike platforms and some closed source Unixlike subsystems (Linux, Free/Net/OpenBSD, OS X, Microsoft's Services for UNIX or whatever it's called this week). It's distributed with Microsoft's Unixlike subsystem for Windows as well.
There's the commercial Intel C Compiler for Linux, but that's obviously only for x86 and friends and I'm not sure if that compiles recent versions of the kernel (a very quick search shows patches for early 2.6 releases).
Sun has its own compiler, but I'm not sure if it's been ported anything but Solaris. I wonder if it has/is due to be released alongside OpenSolaris?
Any other still-maintained open source compilers that would be worth considering?
Who still refers to Ubuntu 7.04 as "Feisty Fawn"? Quite a few people. Like Ubuntu's ShipIt page. The download URLs for packages and ISOs say "Feisty". It's often referred to by users as "Feisty". But I haven't ran into anyone that says they're using "Longhorn" when they are really using Vista or Windows Server 2008.
Slashdot Mirror
How does minimizing a program / using less active memory cause less power draw? I would imagine that the power you save would be from not having to render the visualizations, resulting in less CPU work. Memory chips aren't going to be shut off or anything like that.
Thing is, though, 802.11a/b/g/n clients usually "associate" with an access point. This is after the client receives a "beacon" from the access point, basically advertising its existence.
So, the access point tells the area that it's broadcasting, and the client sends an association request, and the access point associates with the client. Assuming that that association was gained by the client in a non-malicious manner (no MAC spoofing, no WEP cracking, etc,) it sounds a lot like the system was configured to give any client permission automatically.
I suspect that if there were a significant advantage, this would have easy to do in OS X - if not the default. Windows lets you manipulate the swap file size, location, etc, and turn it off together. but OS X only really lets you control whether the swap file is encrypted or not. With 4GB of RAM in OS X, I've got about 1GB free RAM and 1GB of swap in use (out of 2GB total.)
You do realize that Dell, Lenovo, and HP Compaq have at least two separate product lines each: one for consumer, and one for business?
And that they usually have different support?
And then they can just rebuild the jamming stations...
It did. However, it did not feature protected memory (and neither did Windows 98).
DirectX has nothing to do with it. The first version of Windows NT, Windows NT 3.1, had both preemptive multitasking and protected memory.
An interesting anecdote, but not relevant to whether either operating system has protected memory (nope!) or preemptive multitasking (yep!).
Preemptive multitasking isn't a matter of opinion. Windows NT 3.1 was the first Windows NT version and it had preemptive multitasking. Windows 95 a few years later was the first "classic" Windows version with preemptive multitasking.
Yes; high speed wireless networks have extensive error correction. For example, 54mbit/sec is the maximum raw data rate for 802.11a/g, and doesn't consider error correction. This is why you don't actually get those speeds in real-world applications.
EDGE is more prone to interference & reverberation. The things that CDMA did better than GSM/TDMA ten years ago still apply; WCDMA-based UMTS is better at dealing with adverse RF conditions than GSM/EDGE..
It does. EDGE is just a way to pack more bits into the same timeslot.
The author is right about 3G networks having more bandwidth and higher power consumption, but 3G has *much less latency.
The article is full of bad assumptions and his reasoning for 3G's higher power consumption is faulty.
It's not worse. It's much bette than EDGE.
That has little to do with it. CDMA is simply a superior technology (1xRTT has lower latency than EDGE, even though it has less total bandwidth; EVDO blows both away). HSDPA is a lot better than EDGE & directly comparable to EVDO.
It took me 21 seconds on my Samsung SGH-i607 Blackjack, using HSDPA & the Opera browser set to desktop rendering mode (so it shows the same page as desktop Opera would)
It didn't start downloading until 5 seconds into that for some reason, and it was browseable after 16 seconds or so.
(The page took about 4 seconds to load on my ADSL line)
TrueCrypt, which doesn't have any key management or Active Directory integration or whole disk encryption support for the boot drive.
While 15 mbps is better than AT&T U-verse (is still copper-based VDSL), it's not as good as the speeds offered by Fios.
IIRC AT&T's U-verse currently runs at ~26 mbit total (combined, TV and internet). They plan to upgrade that to 40 mbit or so IIRC, if they haven't done it already.
Fios is fiber-based and has much more bandwidth -- I think Verizon offers up to 30/5 generally and 50/10 in some areas. From a TV standpoint, Fios is superior since it's an actual HFC-style cable television service, with TV coming to the home via the fiber and being sent over coax inside (compared to U-verse's IPTV)
Time Warner Cable has 15 mbit service available today in a lot of markets, for much cheaper than Speakeasy.
Indeed, I'd choose Fios if it was available.
AT&T (formerly Ameritech) has remote terminals all over the place, in subrurbia. I can't remember anyone not being able to get DSL for the past few years because of distance from the DSLAM... although someone was denied new service due to lack of capacity (at the RT).
Well, yes, there are satellite internet services marketed and intended for domestic consumer use in countries like the USA, Canada, and the United Kingdom. However, there are a lot of services marketed internationally for entire regions or continents. These services vary in cost, intended use, and performance, but they're out there.
Dishes shouldn't be a probelm:Satellite dishes in Yangoon
So Internet shouldn't be a problem for anyone who is willing to pay the hardware & service costs and able to get the equipment and pay the bills.
As an alternative, if the hardware made its way into the right hands and someone kept sending payment, a satellite phone terminal with data access would work as well.
Satellite dishes do find their way into places where they are illegal, such as Tehran (relatively common, at least in the past), Cuba (not as common), or North Korea (much less common).
There's nothing stopping them from having a subnet routed to another location. If they want to be sneaky, they can even fool traceroute.
USB 2 is 480 megabits/sec max; SATA 150 is 150 megabytes/sec max; SATA 300 is 300 megabytes/sec max. A single drive will easily saturate USB 2 or FireWire 400 and some newer drives can saturate FireWire 800.
The SATA bus can carry data from more than one drive; port multipliers will connect up to 5 drives directly, or a SATA device could be some sort of hardware RAID implementation that presents itself as a single drive to the host. (My maximum throughput with SATA has been 120 megabytes/sec on a supposedly SATA 300 link with a PCI Express x1 host adatper, with 5 drives that easily sustain 60 megabytes/sec each.)
So, USB 3, at 4.8 gigabits/sec, can be saturated easily with today's SATA devices, even if it takes more than a few drives.
Actually, VMware doesn't use VT by default in 32-bit situations because it's slower. The same is true for VirtualBox.
Fios acts like traditional cable TV; it's a HFC (hybrid fiber coax) network that runs fiber to the home and converts it to coax. It supports standard NTSC tuners as well as CableCard.
AT&T's U-verse does not act like cable; it's an IPTV service that requires IPTV set top boxes and operates using limited bandwidth. Therefore, a STB is required. (I believe they currently support only 1 HD stream at a time, although this is supposed to be raised to 2 soon.)
There is no such thing as a 1080i panel (although there are 1080i CRTs and possibly projection TVs). There are 1280x720, 1366x768, and 1920x1080 panels. Since 1080i is one of the ATSC standard resolutions, and there is a lot of older HD hardware that will not scale/deinterlace 1080i signals to 720p, nearly all of these displays will have deinterlacing/scaling capability for 1080i support.
My 1920x1080 monitor has no problem deinterlacing 1080i (okay, so it doesn't do a great job... but it's definitely not scaling to 720p first, and it does a better job than a cable box.)
A TV without any sort of tuner is usually called a monitor. Sometimes they throw in "HD Ready" too.
Westinghouse's HD monitors are LVM-xxxx, and their HDTVs are LTV-xxxx.
There were more HDTVs with CableCard support in June 2006 then there are today.
It's a good thing that you have been researching these things. It's not like you can get an ATSC tuner for under $100 brand new today, and it's highly unlikely that the price will fall as more competition enters the market and the FCC's vouchers are given to consumers. Right???
There isn't going to be a whole lot of demand for this hardware until the shutdown is almost here. Perhaps a few months before.
Well, from some of the people I've met, I'd say that those that make ethically wrong decisions at age 21 aren't going to somehow change significantly 10-20 years later. They may have been around long enough that they might not care about other people so much, but the person who wants to snoop around someone else's web history when he forgets to loxk his workstation could be 20 or 50.
Personally, I never thought of this kind of thing until a few months after I started woring full-time in IT. Around that time is when I started to understand the values of processes and such. But after that, things seemed pretty simple.
Not a bad idea, except GCC (a GNU project) is the primary compiler for most open-source Unixlike platforms and some closed source Unixlike subsystems (Linux, Free/Net/OpenBSD, OS X, Microsoft's Services for UNIX or whatever it's called this week). It's distributed with Microsoft's Unixlike subsystem for Windows as well.
There's the commercial Intel C Compiler for Linux, but that's obviously only for x86 and friends and I'm not sure if that compiles recent versions of the kernel (a very quick search shows patches for early 2.6 releases).
Sun has its own compiler, but I'm not sure if it's been ported anything but Solaris. I wonder if it has/is due to be released alongside OpenSolaris?
Any other still-maintained open source compilers that would be worth considering?
Who still calls Vista "Longhorn"? Hardly anyone.
Who still refers to Ubuntu 7.04 as "Feisty Fawn"? Quite a few people. Like Ubuntu's ShipIt page. The download URLs for packages and ISOs say "Feisty". It's often referred to by users as "Feisty".
But I haven't ran into anyone that says they're using "Longhorn" when they are really using Vista or Windows Server 2008.