One would be enough, especially for somethingwith so low market share. If zealots could all work together, surely we wouldn't have RPM/DEB/APT-GET/TAR mess
obviously you don't have ati card, so you can't tell of progress
New ATi Catalyst Control Ceneter Linux Edition is nice.
yet another Fedora Core 6
on
CentOS 5 Released
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
RH admitted that 300+ packages in RHEL5 are rpms from FC6. RHEL 5 strongly resembles of FC6... it is nothing but augmented version of it anyway...and CentOS is exactly that as well.
Seriously, intel shitsets offer almost nothing. It is not just 3D that is lacking, but hardware decoding features that are perhaps more important.
But you can't expect more from $2 chip.
Most people are not willing to pay more, that is root of problem. Intel just delivers cheap solution. Then some users figure " oh integrated graphics sux and I can't do a thing"... then it is too late.
You can't buy 19" with 1600x1200 resolution, yes, there are 20.1" ones with 1600x1200, but you were talking about 19" which per rule have 1280x1024 5:4 resolution unless they are widescreen. Same applies to 16:10 screens that you declared to be 16:9. Simply, you were wrong on both counts.
About your study (that you pulled from your ass): there's no such thing as 19" LCD 4:3 monitor. All 19" LCD monitors are either 5:4 (the ones you are talking about), or 16:10, which are widescreen.
Also there's no 16:9 LCD monitor...there are 16:9 TVs but we're not talking about them.
Their refusal to support nForce2 and nForce3 in Vista means I won't be buying anything from them, and I urge you all to consider this fact when shopping: they don't have enough resources to support all their products, which can be seen from delay or lack of drivers, and issues with hardware.
This is not trolling, it is a fact. Compare to intel, VIA, and others supporting way older hardware.
..is alone reason to use Vista. In nutshell, superfetch pre-fetches to RAM commonly used data from disk at idle time, so response is stellar for commonly used applications. It is a shame that Microsoft hasn't implemented such feature earlier. Yeah, there was some bland effort in XP that was limited to small executable files.
Because 1GB of app/user data (assuming you have more than 1GB of RAM) is always ready in RAM, is being read from disk just once; the Vista does feel faster.
Because issue lays in capability to run Aero, which requires Shader Model 2.0 in hardware.
If SM 2.0 compatible video card is part of system, any modern hardware with 512MB of RAM would run all Vista features just fine.
However, intel enjoyed dominant market share in integrated graphics segment for years, and did next to nothing to keep up with trends. Until 2006, there was no intel graphics that would support hardware Transform and Lighting (TnL) which is technology from year 2000. Right now, only last generation of intel graphics has some SM 2. support, enough to run Aero.
In result, anybody trying to do anything 3D with intel card was laughed upon. Since regular consumer has no clue what SM 2.0 is, he buys the machine, and then figures there's nothing he can do to run Vista in full glory.
Nowadays, mobo RAID actually means RAID made by chipset manufacturers: that is Intel, NVIDIA, VIA, SIS, etc. Highpoint and Silicon Image are still there, but virtually any 2 yrs old motherboard already has onboard RAID from chipset.
dmraid does pretty good job with all of them, it is just that some distros are still reserved towards it, and not ready yet to put it in the installer.
So I'm going to get better performance of my two drives by using Linux soft RAID in Vista and XP?
Mobo RAID it is worth it, just hard-core Linux users don't get it. It is not anti-Linux or locked in Windows patform, as dmraid shows. IT is trendy, and all Linux distros will use it, sooner or later.
Lately, even HP and DELL are selling home desktop computers with mobo RAID enabled and preconfigured.
"The correct solution is probably to put the RAID on a dedicated server and use smb to access it from clients instead"
You are missing the point. I said mobo RAID is free feature for home users that improves disk performance without cost or hassle.
Because on other partitions I have Windows, and another NTFS partition with lots of multimedia. And that is reality - users want to use their RAID configurations for Windows, and to have compatible Linux distro that can use them too.
Thus Linux software RAID is only plausible if you are strictly on Linux, but in dual boot environment it doesn't stand. Linux shouldn't force people to chose something incompatible with other platforms.
Today, more and more people opt in for using home RAID arrays, primarily from free chipset controllers that implement RAID 0,1, (5) capabilities in software. It is free performance upgrade for anybody with more than one hard drive.
For long time, no Linux distro would support this 'winRAID'. Then dmraid project was created at RedHat, and soon after, Fedora Core 5,6, SUSE 10.2, and RHEL 5 have installer support for it.
Last I've heard that future Ubuntu releases will contain support for dmraid... does anybody can verify that is the case, that is Ubuntu 7.04 can be installed on RAID0 device created on onboard RAID controller?
I'm not...the emphasis is one thing: list of nice wishes and expectations of Indian professors. The talent + strong theoretical mathematical background are another.
Slashdot Mirror
BBM?
New version of Useless Linux for Idiots is out.
One would be enough, especially for somethingwith so low market share. If zealots could all work together, surely we wouldn't have RPM/DEB/APT-GET/TAR mess
...from amateurish stuff being implemented as a standard.
obviously you don't have ati card, so you can't tell of progress
New ATi Catalyst Control Ceneter Linux Edition is nice.
RH admitted that 300+ packages in RHEL5 are rpms from FC6. RHEL 5 strongly resembles of FC6... it is nothing but augmented version of it anyway ...and CentOS is exactly that as well.
Why would they have 'computer' title when all they do is design the case?
WD Raptors and garbage.
Now, people that have garbage (running at 7200rpm) can mod me down, but nothing beats my 4 Raptors unless it has SCSI in its name.
...must be even better if you run DOS on it.
Seriously, intel shitsets offer almost nothing. It is not just 3D that is lacking, but hardware decoding features that are perhaps more important.
But you can't expect more from $2 chip.
Most people are not willing to pay more, that is root of problem. Intel just delivers cheap solution. Then some users figure " oh integrated graphics sux and I can't do a thing"... then it is too late.
Intel supports their 865/875P chipsets in Vista, that are even older. Keeping up? nForce3 and nForce10^6 support Athlon 64 CPUs.
You can't buy 19" with 1600x1200 resolution, yes, there are 20.1" ones with 1600x1200, but you were talking about 19" which per rule have 1280x1024 5:4 resolution unless they are widescreen. Same applies to 16:10 screens that you declared to be 16:9. Simply, you were wrong on both counts.
About your study (that you pulled from your ass): there's no such thing as 19" LCD 4:3 monitor. All 19" LCD monitors are either 5:4 (the ones you are talking about), or 16:10, which are widescreen.
Also there's no 16:9 LCD monitor...there are 16:9 TVs but we're not talking about them.
Their refusal to support nForce2 and nForce3 in Vista means I won't be buying anything from them, and I urge you all to consider this fact when shopping: they don't have enough resources to support all their products, which can be seen from delay or lack of drivers, and issues with hardware.
This is not trolling, it is a fact. Compare to intel, VIA, and others supporting way older hardware.
..is alone reason to use Vista. In nutshell, superfetch pre-fetches to RAM commonly used data from disk at idle time, so response is stellar for commonly used applications. It is a shame that Microsoft hasn't implemented such feature earlier. Yeah, there was some bland effort in XP that was limited to small executable files.
Because 1GB of app/user data (assuming you have more than 1GB of RAM) is always ready in RAM, is being read from disk just once; the Vista does feel faster.
Because issue lays in capability to run Aero, which requires Shader Model 2.0 in hardware.
If SM 2.0 compatible video card is part of system, any modern hardware with 512MB of RAM would run all Vista features just fine.
However, intel enjoyed dominant market share in integrated graphics segment for years, and did next to nothing to keep up with trends. Until 2006, there was no intel graphics that would support hardware Transform and Lighting (TnL) which is technology from year 2000. Right now, only last generation of intel graphics has some SM 2. support, enough to run Aero.
In result, anybody trying to do anything 3D with intel card was laughed upon. Since regular consumer has no clue what SM 2.0 is, he buys the machine, and then figures there's nothing he can do to run Vista in full glory.
Last 60 yrs have shown us: No Tesla = No wireless power.
.... you managed to look less geeky than whole group.
Nowadays, mobo RAID actually means RAID made by chipset manufacturers: that is Intel, NVIDIA, VIA, SIS, etc. Highpoint and Silicon Image are still there, but virtually any 2 yrs old motherboard already has onboard RAID from chipset.
dmraid does pretty good job with all of them, it is just that some distros are still reserved towards it, and not ready yet to put it in the installer.
... people would use Microsoft products to pirate & distribute Microsoft products.
So I'm going to get better performance of my two drives by using Linux soft RAID in Vista and XP?
Mobo RAID it is worth it, just hard-core Linux users don't get it. It is not anti-Linux or locked in Windows patform, as dmraid shows. IT is trendy, and all Linux distros will use it, sooner or later.
Lately, even HP and DELL are selling home desktop computers with mobo RAID enabled and preconfigured.
"The correct solution is probably to put the RAID on a dedicated server and use smb to access it from clients instead"
You are missing the point. I said mobo RAID is free feature for home users that improves disk performance without cost or hassle.
Because on other partitions I have Windows, and another NTFS partition with lots of multimedia. And that is reality - users want to use their RAID configurations for Windows, and to have compatible Linux distro that can use them too. Thus Linux software RAID is only plausible if you are strictly on Linux, but in dual boot environment it doesn't stand. Linux shouldn't force people to chose something incompatible with other platforms.
Today, more and more people opt in for using home RAID arrays, primarily from free chipset controllers that implement RAID 0,1, (5) capabilities in software. It is free performance upgrade for anybody with more than one hard drive.
For long time, no Linux distro would support this 'winRAID'. Then dmraid project was created at RedHat, and soon after, Fedora Core 5,6, SUSE 10.2, and RHEL 5 have installer support for it.
Last I've heard that future Ubuntu releases will contain support for dmraid... does anybody can verify that is the case, that is Ubuntu 7.04 can be installed on RAID0 device created on onboard RAID controller?
"Just as good"
SNR ratio on onboard cards is a joke. Bu hey, it is your decision; if you can't spot the difference, or you have cheap speakers.
I'm not...the emphasis is one thing: list of nice wishes and expectations of Indian professors. The talent + strong theoretical mathematical background are another.
mac-fdisk