Now we'll see Microsoft going "OMG DON'T USE FIREFOX YOU CAN'T EVEN CLICK ON SOMETHING SAFELY!".
You mean like the F/OSS evangelists do everytime a flaw is found in Internet Explorer?
However, I do think there is an important lesson in here - a lot of open source advocates have set an unreasonable level of expectations by proclaiming the amazing magic of open source: A fantasy world where every line is thoroughly vetted by thousands of super-experts, and if the source is available that instantly disproves the existence of malicious intent (put a trojan out, mark in GPL and make the source available, and I'd bet a lot of the converted would immediately download and install blindly. There are countless OSS projects where no one but the author ever bothers looking at the code).
Astoundingly you start off with this, and then basically repeat exactly what I said.
However your conclusion, that VM memory is more important, is absurd - if an app has large swaths of memory that it basically doesn't touch, and thus can be paged out, that reduces the real memory load of the application - basically it's free memory management for apps (which a lot of apps rely upon). However if Windows deems that the memory shouldn't be swapped out, keeping the memory usage high, because a process keeps touching the pages, then that matters. That really bogarts real live physical memory.
You see, perhaps this might be the reason that those crazy Microsoft folks put that crazy mem usage on the task manager, and left vm memory as an extra option. Or maybe they just didn't consult with you.
In contrast, Onboard NICs, USB and firewire controllers, and even audio cards (the SoundStorm stuff on nvidia boards, before they copped out of sound, is absolutely superb) on motherboards are generally all top notch.
and is a completely and totally useless statistic that reflects nothing particularly interesting about how much memory a program is actually using
You have that complete bass ackwards. Memory usage shows how much physical memory (something which is usually somewhat limited) is currently allocated to the process, while VM Size shows the virtual memory (something which is practically limitless).
If a process starts up, allocates 100MB, and then never touches it, the VM Size will be significantly larger than the real memory usage, and in the real world this makes a big difference - having some seldom-used space in a paging file set aside for a task is a lot less relevant than having a block of physical memory set aside. If, on the other hand, a process allocates 100MB and then perpetually scans through it looking for Waldo, it won't be paged out and it'll consume real physical memory.
Of course memory usage can include shared memory blocks, but overall it is the best indicator of the real, practical memory usage of an application. No one cares how many new statements exist in the code - they care how much finite physical memory is practically used by the app.
The US military can whoop any nation's ass (I'm talking conventional. There are no winners in a nuclear conflict). In fact I will go so far as to say that hte US military can whoop any combination of 5 nations' ass, probably more. That crazy "research" investment is the reason why the US has so few casualties in actual combat (doesn't help with policing though).
Now if you're idiotic enough, which I know you are, to confuse that statement of plain fact with "extolling", then you're hopeless.
Re:But is it the default config...
on
Hack IIS6 Contest
·
· Score: 1
What I want to know is if this site is running a DEFAULT INSTALL.
It's IIS 6.0, thus Windows 2003. Windows 2003 is very secure by default, with quite literally no web extensions installed (without twiddling with the default install, there is no dynamic content at all - just a static server). They had to enable some additional features (and thus risks) to create the site they mentioned.
The US can't even hang onto a semi average size nation in the middle east never mind China
The US walked over Iraq with unbelievable ease (with just a couple of battlefield casualties). Policing is an entirely different matter altogether, and you can't (well, normally) call in a strike package against insurgents hidden amidst a bunch of innocents.
In other words, if you think the policy and democracy building in Iraq is indicative of the war-capability of the US, you are very, very misguided.
Now, is *this* something to claim and be proud of?
Who's proud of it? I'm personally a Canadian, and was simply responding with a statement of fact to someone that was clearly a little bit deluded about the degree of China's ascent.
For starters, China would own the US in anyway war
Are you for real? The worldwide annual military expenditures is ~$900 billion. The US portion of that is 1/2. That's right - one half of the world's militarism is the US. China is barely a blip, and is generally equipped with Russian cast-offs and cheap knock-offs.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that China has the largest standing army - when you are dominated from the air and sea, that's what they call "cannon fodder". It's an absolutely irrelevant number, and really just represents how big of a casualty count you can rack up.
I'm not trying to piss on China - it is going to be great nation in coming years, and will definitely achieve the influence it deserves - but you clearly are so blinded by your anti-US rhetoric that you totally fell off the clue boat.
Privacy freaks??? You can be a privacy pacifist and still be a little concerned about this.
I realize that some people have the Google blinders on, so just sit back in your chair, close your eyes, and imagine a world where Microsoft did this. They would be absolutely EVISCERATED.
in every discussion you get the poor folks like you who have no need or desire to extend the state of the art
Wow, you must have Microsoft SuperClearType installed to read that, because I sure can't see it, or even anything remotely implying it. I recommend some reading comprehension coarses and perhaps some botox injections to reduce the knee jerk.
To be fair a lot of gaming sites have been showing the minimum framerates in addition to the average framerate, for exactly this reason - two cards would yield the same average framerate over a 2 minute test session, yet one slowed to 5 fps over a period, while the other pushed through it at 30 fps.
It's a noticeable flaw, every 30 seconds. Doesn't matter if all you care about is "frames per second."
It isn't a "flaw", and my example (or transferring an entire 512MB) was purely rhetorical. Unless the programming is terrible, which I'm sure it isn't, realistically a couple of minute, microsecond transfers would be taking place continuously and transparently. I doubt it would be noticable at all to the user.
Doom 3 in the "Ultra" mode will most definitely require 512MB of graphics card memory to run well
But this article shows otherwise - there was almost no difference having 512MB of video card memory. The reason is most certainly that different subsets are used in different areas, and the hit on AGP/PCI Express to pull the active set into video card memory is momentary and largely irrelevant. If every 30 seconds you need to purge and cycle in through ultra-high speed AGPx8 or PCI Express, that really isn't that great of a hit. AGPx8 transfer some 2GB/second (so a quarter of a second presuming it was an entire purge and refill, which would never be the case), and I presume PCI Express is even faster.
To be the master of the obvious, of course there will be no, or limited, benefit of that much memory on your video card.
The reason is obvious: game designers target the prevalent market. Given that there are a limited number (zero) of users with 512MB of onboard memory, few video game makers are going to require 512MB of simultaneous textures (or even 256MB, and to a degree not even 128MB). Doom 3 may, as the article states, have 500MB of textures, but I highly doubt they are used simultaneously.
This is just another card for people with the money to say "just in case...".
Don't fool yourself: Microsoft's competitors are getting stronger, and Microsoft has a responsibility towards its customers and partners to provide them with software at least as good as the competition. Failing that, the unquestioned perception of Microsoft as being a good choice may begin to fade faster than you think.
Sounds good to me. I don't work for Microsoft, and I don't hold their stock. I don't even get a commission for shooting down anti-MS FUD!
Personally I've seriously considered getting a Mac lately because Apple seems to be delivering some wonderful software. Would a new Mac come with Tiger?
I completely agree with that, actually. It means little that Microsoft has been yabbering about predecessors of WinFS for a decade when it isn't serving any use for me today. Nor does it help me today that Longhorn will feature new Super Frickin' Duper graphics. Talk is cheap, and Microsoft is notorious for talking far beyond their capability of delivering.
My contention, though, is this perpetual "Apple Invented Everything" mantra that every Apple fan seems to buy into unquestioned. Apple has shown a brilliant ability to deliver, but delivering isn't the same as innovation.
But it is. SQL Server, for instance, feels that it can do a better job improving performance taking memory that would generally go to the file system cache and using it for internal domain data caching - the cache is more effective for the proscribed use.
Of course these apps generally are tuned to "live alone" - a machine with SQL Server, a machine with Exchange, a machine with BizTalk, and so on. They do need to be configured accordingly when you start mix and matching.
I've never understood that rule - pointing out weaknesses gets YOU no points, it might remove his, but you won't win unless you can actually out-argue one of his points rather than just discrediting them
On the topic of discrediting, I think we should remember that Anonymous Cowards have been, historically, the perpetrators of countless GNAA recruitment campaigns, goatse stealth links, and ad hominem attacks. Anonymous Cowards have posted misogynist and anti-semitic attacks of horrifying proportions, and as a general rule are unsavoury characters.
Yes, I'm joking. Everyone who tells you that W2K3 is a rock solid operating system is just an idiot, and they just don't have the profound, extensive experience you have running it on your old 32MB K5 233 with your Virge graphics card.
And when applications request more memory in limit situations, guess what? Windows just kills the applications! Nice "memory management"!
Bullshit.
Windows of course will deny the memory request, like every OS, however most apps (just like the vast majority of apps in the Linux world) don't bother checking if their allocate succeeded, and they promptly GPF by trying to access a null pointer. This is exactly what happens in every OS.
I suppose instead it should magically massage the application into health?
Funny, however, how the rendering scheme and virtualization of graphics card memmory sounds awfully like the new, and currently shipping, graphics engine in Apple's OS X.
Right, because Apple invents everything they do. ALL HAIL APPLE! ALL HAIL JOBS! OMG Did you see the desktop search that Apple invented?
Microsoft has been talking about the Longhorn interface, or similar predecessors, quite literally before the time that Apple decided to coopt the FreeBSD foundations. Of course Microsoft has a bit more marketshare to worry about, and their primary competitor is actually themselves, so their ability to turn thoughts into shipping products is greatly reduced. This is the same Microsoft that has been talking about pervasive search and file metadata, ala WinFS, for well over a decade. Of course now that Apple shipped Spotlight, they invented it.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we'll see Microsoft going "OMG DON'T USE FIREFOX YOU CAN'T EVEN CLICK ON SOMETHING SAFELY!".
You mean like the F/OSS evangelists do everytime a flaw is found in Internet Explorer?
However, I do think there is an important lesson in here - a lot of open source advocates have set an unreasonable level of expectations by proclaiming the amazing magic of open source: A fantasy world where every line is thoroughly vetted by thousands of super-experts, and if the source is available that instantly disproves the existence of malicious intent (put a trojan out, mark in GPL and make the source available, and I'd bet a lot of the converted would immediately download and install blindly. There are countless OSS projects where no one but the author ever bothers looking at the code).
You are just making that up.
Astoundingly you start off with this, and then basically repeat exactly what I said.
However your conclusion, that VM memory is more important, is absurd - if an app has large swaths of memory that it basically doesn't touch, and thus can be paged out, that reduces the real memory load of the application - basically it's free memory management for apps (which a lot of apps rely upon). However if Windows deems that the memory shouldn't be swapped out, keeping the memory usage high, because a process keeps touching the pages, then that matters. That really bogarts real live physical memory.
You see, perhaps this might be the reason that those crazy Microsoft folks put that crazy mem usage on the task manager, and left vm memory as an extra option. Or maybe they just didn't consult with you.
Probably because onboard graphics usually stink.
In contrast, Onboard NICs, USB and firewire controllers, and even audio cards (the SoundStorm stuff on nvidia boards, before they copped out of sound, is absolutely superb) on motherboards are generally all top notch.
and is a completely and totally useless statistic that reflects nothing particularly interesting about how much memory a program is actually using
You have that complete bass ackwards. Memory usage shows how much physical memory (something which is usually somewhat limited) is currently allocated to the process, while VM Size shows the virtual memory (something which is practically limitless).
If a process starts up, allocates 100MB, and then never touches it, the VM Size will be significantly larger than the real memory usage, and in the real world this makes a big difference - having some seldom-used space in a paging file set aside for a task is a lot less relevant than having a block of physical memory set aside. If, on the other hand, a process allocates 100MB and then perpetually scans through it looking for Waldo, it won't be paged out and it'll consume real physical memory.
Of course memory usage can include shared memory blocks, but overall it is the best indicator of the real, practical memory usage of an application. No one cares how many new statements exist in the code - they care how much finite physical memory is practically used by the app.
Uh, okay.
It's more about world-scale piracy and stealing
Oh god, busting over laughing. And you're saying this in defense of China, which is unbelievably over the top.
I'm not even frickin' American, but I have the capability to see the world in something other than delusional paranoid escapism.
So shut up with the American extolling, ok?
Dear idiot,
The US military can whoop any nation's ass (I'm talking conventional. There are no winners in a nuclear conflict). In fact I will go so far as to say that hte US military can whoop any combination of 5 nations' ass, probably more. That crazy "research" investment is the reason why the US has so few casualties in actual combat (doesn't help with policing though).
Now if you're idiotic enough, which I know you are, to confuse that statement of plain fact with "extolling", then you're hopeless.
What I want to know is if this site is running a DEFAULT INSTALL.
It's IIS 6.0, thus Windows 2003. Windows 2003 is very secure by default, with quite literally no web extensions installed (without twiddling with the default install, there is no dynamic content at all - just a static server). They had to enable some additional features (and thus risks) to create the site they mentioned.
Who do you think pays for US military? Ever thought where those billions of dollars that Chinese and Japanese loan to you go?
Firstly, I'm not American. I realize that some people can't read facts without getting confused about the biases behind them.
Secondly, your take on economics is laughable.
The US can't even hang onto a semi average size nation in the middle east never mind China
The US walked over Iraq with unbelievable ease (with just a couple of battlefield casualties). Policing is an entirely different matter altogether, and you can't (well, normally) call in a strike package against insurgents hidden amidst a bunch of innocents.
In other words, if you think the policy and democracy building in Iraq is indicative of the war-capability of the US, you are very, very misguided.
Now, is *this* something to claim and be proud of?
Who's proud of it? I'm personally a Canadian, and was simply responding with a statement of fact to someone that was clearly a little bit deluded about the degree of China's ascent.
For starters, China would own the US in anyway war
Are you for real? The worldwide annual military expenditures is ~$900 billion. The US portion of that is 1/2. That's right - one half of the world's militarism is the US. China is barely a blip, and is generally equipped with Russian cast-offs and cheap knock-offs.
Perhaps you're confused by the fact that China has the largest standing army - when you are dominated from the air and sea, that's what they call "cannon fodder". It's an absolutely irrelevant number, and really just represents how big of a casualty count you can rack up.
I'm not trying to piss on China - it is going to be great nation in coming years, and will definitely achieve the influence it deserves - but you clearly are so blinded by your anti-US rhetoric that you totally fell off the clue boat.
Privacy freaks??? You can be a privacy pacifist and still be a little concerned about this.
I realize that some people have the Google blinders on, so just sit back in your chair, close your eyes, and imagine a world where Microsoft did this. They would be absolutely EVISCERATED.
Indeed.
Due to that mistype I am going to submit myself to a thorough caning, followed by a fist fight with a kangaroo.
yeah and the MASTER OF THE OBVIOUS
I nominate you master of the oblivious.
in every discussion you get the poor folks like you who have no need or desire to extend the state of the art
Wow, you must have Microsoft SuperClearType installed to read that, because I sure can't see it, or even anything remotely implying it. I recommend some reading comprehension coarses and perhaps some botox injections to reduce the knee jerk.
To be fair a lot of gaming sites have been showing the minimum framerates in addition to the average framerate, for exactly this reason - two cards would yield the same average framerate over a 2 minute test session, yet one slowed to 5 fps over a period, while the other pushed through it at 30 fps.
It's a noticeable flaw, every 30 seconds. Doesn't matter if all you care about is "frames per second."
It isn't a "flaw", and my example (or transferring an entire 512MB) was purely rhetorical. Unless the programming is terrible, which I'm sure it isn't, realistically a couple of minute, microsecond transfers would be taking place continuously and transparently. I doubt it would be noticable at all to the user.
Doom 3 in the "Ultra" mode will most definitely require 512MB of graphics card memory to run well
But this article shows otherwise - there was almost no difference having 512MB of video card memory. The reason is most certainly that different subsets are used in different areas, and the hit on AGP/PCI Express to pull the active set into video card memory is momentary and largely irrelevant. If every 30 seconds you need to purge and cycle in through ultra-high speed AGPx8 or PCI Express, that really isn't that great of a hit. AGPx8 transfer some 2GB/second (so a quarter of a second presuming it was an entire purge and refill, which would never be the case), and I presume PCI Express is even faster.
To be the master of the obvious, of course there will be no, or limited, benefit of that much memory on your video card.
The reason is obvious: game designers target the prevalent market. Given that there are a limited number (zero) of users with 512MB of onboard memory, few video game makers are going to require 512MB of simultaneous textures (or even 256MB, and to a degree not even 128MB). Doom 3 may, as the article states, have 500MB of textures, but I highly doubt they are used simultaneously.
This is just another card for people with the money to say "just in case...".
It's interesting that you say that the uptime arguement is circa 1999 and is very, very stale, yet you don't say that it's invalid.
What the hell is an arguement?
I'm glad you don't work for NASA with your "reboots are good for you" mentality.
Firstly, bringing up NASA is just idiotic in any context - how many Slashdotters run life or death space agencies? Right, that's very few.
However how you read that to mean that reboots are good for you, as you so blindly pseudo-paraphrased, is perplexing.
Don't fool yourself: Microsoft's competitors are getting stronger, and Microsoft has a responsibility towards its customers and partners to provide them with software at least as good as the competition. Failing that, the unquestioned perception of Microsoft as being a good choice may begin to fade faster than you think.
Sounds good to me. I don't work for Microsoft, and I don't hold their stock. I don't even get a commission for shooting down anti-MS FUD!
Personally I've seriously considered getting a Mac lately because Apple seems to be delivering some wonderful software. Would a new Mac come with Tiger?
Talk is cheap.
I completely agree with that, actually. It means little that Microsoft has been yabbering about predecessors of WinFS for a decade when it isn't serving any use for me today. Nor does it help me today that Longhorn will feature new Super Frickin' Duper graphics. Talk is cheap, and Microsoft is notorious for talking far beyond their capability of delivering.
My contention, though, is this perpetual "Apple Invented Everything" mantra that every Apple fan seems to buy into unquestioned. Apple has shown a brilliant ability to deliver, but delivering isn't the same as innovation.
But it is. SQL Server, for instance, feels that it can do a better job improving performance taking memory that would generally go to the file system cache and using it for internal domain data caching - the cache is more effective for the proscribed use.
Of course these apps generally are tuned to "live alone" - a machine with SQL Server, a machine with Exchange, a machine with BizTalk, and so on. They do need to be configured accordingly when you start mix and matching.
I've never understood that rule - pointing out weaknesses gets YOU no points, it might remove his, but you won't win unless you can actually out-argue one of his points rather than just discrediting them
On the topic of discrediting, I think we should remember that Anonymous Cowards have been, historically, the perpetrators of countless GNAA recruitment campaigns, goatse stealth links, and ad hominem attacks. Anonymous Cowards have posted misogynist and anti-semitic attacks of horrifying proportions, and as a general rule are unsavoury characters.
So clearly your point has no foundation.
You must be joking.
Yes, I'm joking. Everyone who tells you that W2K3 is a rock solid operating system is just an idiot, and they just don't have the profound, extensive experience you have running it on your old 32MB K5 233 with your Virge graphics card.
And when applications request more memory in limit situations, guess what? Windows just kills the applications! Nice "memory management"!
Bullshit.
Windows of course will deny the memory request, like every OS, however most apps (just like the vast majority of apps in the Linux world) don't bother checking if their allocate succeeded, and they promptly GPF by trying to access a null pointer. This is exactly what happens in every OS.
I suppose instead it should magically massage the application into health?
Funny, however, how the rendering scheme and virtualization of graphics card memmory sounds awfully like the new, and currently shipping, graphics engine in Apple's OS X.
Right, because Apple invents everything they do. ALL HAIL APPLE! ALL HAIL JOBS! OMG Did you see the desktop search that Apple invented?
Microsoft has been talking about the Longhorn interface, or similar predecessors, quite literally before the time that Apple decided to coopt the FreeBSD foundations. Of course Microsoft has a bit more marketshare to worry about, and their primary competitor is actually themselves, so their ability to turn thoughts into shipping products is greatly reduced. This is the same Microsoft that has been talking about pervasive search and file metadata, ala WinFS, for well over a decade. Of course now that Apple shipped Spotlight, they invented it.