Astronomically small? It's happened to me TWICE in a couple years and I only have a single large raid array. It happens quite often -- and I'm using one of your LSI controllers (9280-16i4e).
Having just built a brand new Z170 system (with a 950 PRO), it doesn't take $3500 to build. Not even close. It's closer to $1200 for a single 512GB SSD system, and an additional $600 to put two more 512GB drives in it.
These are the relevant tests that stress the javascript engines. I've omitted the ones that test chrome's proprietary HTML extensions, or graphic rendering. There are plenty of other benchmarks testing the entire browser for page load times, and Edge does even better in those tests. Edge may not have the most features, or rolled in the experimental HTML5 stuff, but it is very very fast.
My house was build in the 70s I believe, and I have no issues with the 5Ghz band in any room, even though I have my router in the basement, and TVs on the main and 2nd floor. Chromecast 2 support 5Ghz I believe, as does my XBox-One, and my Apple TVs. Roku 4 does as well.
And I would say you are a paid shill for one of Microsoft's competitors, hiding behind an anonymous account. Why the need to be anonymous on a fairly anti-MS forum if not? We've all seen this before and we won't fall for it again. If you have something to rebut, then do so, but blanket unfounded statements won't cut it.
I blame Bill Gates. It was under his direction these things happened. He either set forth the direction or was aware and complicit in all of those examples.
It is also partially the fault of those under him who didn't push back, but that's easy to say when it's not your job, your career on the line and you (may) have a wife (or husband) at home with kids who like to eat.
The company name means nothing, or are you suggesting that if they dissolved the company and created a new company with the same people, same offices that all of sudden everything is "forgiven"? That is just niave.
So you haven't been around for very long then? It took me about 3 seconds to find Examples [wikipedia.org].
Well, most of those examples stem from the whole Java thing which happened 20 years ago (1995-1996).
I'm not sure where the issue with Kerbios is/was. Windows 2000 was release in Feb 2000. The RFP's that describe the extension for changing passwords (RFP3244), was also released Feb 2000, nearly at the same time. The NDA then only covered it until the products actual release, hardly a shining example of "extinguish".
All in all, your "examples", some of which I personally disagree with (having lived through that time) are from 13-20 years ago, 2 CEO's ago, and aren't relevant. Microsoft isn't the same as it was back then, I suspect less than 2% of the workforce that is there now is still there (could be wrong, I just pulled that number out of the air), but the idea stands the same. Not many employees remain that were there are that time, and it's gone under two different CEO's since then.
As for convicted monopolist, they were found guilty of "monopolization and tying" which refers specifically to Microsoft including IE into Windows, and nothing else. I didn't agree with the decision then, still don't today, and most of the claims and assumptions that the court made have since been proven false. Namely, that the court chose that look at smaller segment than it should have. Why only Intel x86 OS's? It should have looked at computers in general. Also, findings 18-29 "The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs." which was false then, and even more false now. There was products that could have substituted, Unix, Xenix, Linux, Mac OS, OS/2, and they could have done so immediately if they so chose, but consumers just didn't want them at the time, and there are even more products now. In fact, many users are realizing the they don't even want or need an Intel-compatible PC AT ALL. They get done what they want on ARM-based (not Intel x86 based) computers called phones and tablets. And yet, each and every single one of these also tie in a web browser, the exact same thing that Microsoft got "convicted" for.
I'm just wonder why Apple isn't getting convicted for the same thing for tying their web browser (AND NOT LETTING OTHERS BE INSTALLED!) on their monopoly of their tablet OSs that run on ARM or android on phones that you can't uninstall their crapware both of which come with their own browsers and is much worse than what Microsoft did.
take any.Net project programmed 10 years ago and try to get it to compile in the latest Visual Studio
Done that already. In fact, the code base was from over 13 years ago. Didn't have a problem. I use code from 10+ years ago in the latest version of Visual Studio all the time. What issue do you have?
Taking a real life.Net application and moving to a different platform is basically impossible.
No it isn't, but the project had to be written to be portable in the first place. The same is true of any application written in any language. If you write it so that it depends on libraries only available on X (or you make assumptions that are only true on X), then you can't move it to Y without first using a library that is available on both X and Y.
By memory, I'm going to go with the assumption you mean RAM, and specifically RAM attached to the CPU, instead of the more generic term memory which would include any type of memory or RAM attached to other things than the CPU (HDD, SSD, video, cache, processory cache, IO buffers, etc). As this isn't RAM attached to the CPU, it's not exactly the same thing, and modern OSes don't typically blank them before handing them off, sometimes quite thankfully. It would be a major pain if every time an application tried to open a file on a HDD/SSD/etc for reading the OS blanked it out first. It would make reading config files difficult.
Secondly, it really isn't the OS that would be responsible for such a thing as the video drivers (especially the low level ones that chrome is likely using) handle GPU memory allocations, etc not the OS. Feel free to complain to your video card manufacturer that they aren't blanking memory on either allocation or deallocation or both.
You mean blank on de-allocation. Unless you are going to try and track every block you've ever used (and possibly released -- and possibly now owned by someone else) and do it at exit -- which smells like a memory leak waiting to happen. Otherwise you need to blank before de-allocating it, which depending on how much is being allocated/de-allocated could significantly impact performance.
I think it's something like: A kitten sits on the fence and it blinks. It’s a very pretty song, and it’s not a long one. Not a long one, not a short one, but just right. Come on, little kitten, sing again.
I didn't say Comcast had a 200% profit margin on everything. Their cable services only accounts for 16% of their revenue, and the physical cable laying accounts for a small portion of that.
The rest of what you say is just niave, backwards and assumptions you pull out of a backwards model of how things actually work.
Well the point being that either you let Comcast/att/cable vision/etc have a monopoly in a city so they can recoup their capital expenses in laying fiber and then you are locked into them basically forever, or you let the city do it and then you get to choose which ISP you want.
Letting the city do it (in theory) will be much cheaper since they aren't looking for a 200% profit on the cost of laying fiber. The city will do it at cost. Then the ISPs need to be competitive because the cost to entry for serving the city in minimal.
Slashdot Mirror
Rebuild just finished... Yesterday. Took 5 days, and that is with 3TB disks.
Astronomically small? It's happened to me TWICE in a couple years and I only have a single large raid array. It happens quite often -- and I'm using one of your LSI controllers (9280-16i4e).
Having just built a brand new Z170 system (with a 950 PRO), it doesn't take $3500 to build. Not even close. It's closer to $1200 for a single 512GB SSD system, and an additional $600 to put two more 512GB drives in it.
Yay, autocorrect.. stating a well known fact.
FYI, the international code for North America is "1".
So when people say America is #1, they are just static a well known fact.
I think the review of public record on lawsuits against google would be a much larger pile about now.
Not done by Microsoft, but here is a benchmark that was done in July between IE, Edge, Chrome, and Firefox by Anandtech:
Benchmark IE 11 Edge 20 Chrome 43 Firefox 39
Sunspider 149.7ms 133.4ms 247.5ms 234.6ms
Octane 2.0 9861 22278 19407 19012
These are the relevant tests that stress the javascript engines. I've omitted the ones that test chrome's proprietary HTML extensions, or graphic rendering. There are plenty of other benchmarks testing the entire browser for page load times, and Edge does even better in those tests. Edge may not have the most features, or rolled in the experimental HTML5 stuff, but it is very very fast.
Or you could send them via email a link to a cat video that they need to run badprogram.exe to install the kitty codec to watch it.
to what extent does 64-bit Windows scale? 4? 8? 16 core?
256.
My house was build in the 70s I believe, and I have no issues with the 5Ghz band in any room, even though I have my router in the basement, and TVs on the main and 2nd floor. Chromecast 2 support 5Ghz I believe, as does my XBox-One, and my Apple TVs. Roku 4 does as well.
You only have 4 browsers installed on your iOS device if they all use the same WebKit engine supplied by Apple, or you've jail broken the device.
Of course, I also have 4 browsers installed on my Windows PC, and didn't have to jail break it to do so.
And I would say you are a paid shill for one of Microsoft's competitors, hiding behind an anonymous account. Why the need to be anonymous on a fairly anti-MS forum if not? We've all seen this before and we won't fall for it again. If you have something to rebut, then do so, but blanket unfounded statements won't cut it.
I blame Bill Gates. It was under his direction these things happened. He either set forth the direction or was aware and complicit in all of those examples.
It is also partially the fault of those under him who didn't push back, but that's easy to say when it's not your job, your career on the line and you (may) have a wife (or husband) at home with kids who like to eat.
The company name means nothing, or are you suggesting that if they dissolved the company and created a new company with the same people, same offices that all of sudden everything is "forgiven"? That is just niave.
So you haven't been around for very long then? It took me about 3 seconds to find Examples [wikipedia.org].
Well, most of those examples stem from the whole Java thing which happened 20 years ago (1995-1996).
I'm not sure where the issue with Kerbios is/was. Windows 2000 was release in Feb 2000. The RFP's that describe the extension for changing passwords (RFP3244), was also released Feb 2000, nearly at the same time. The NDA then only covered it until the products actual release, hardly a shining example of "extinguish".
All in all, your "examples", some of which I personally disagree with (having lived through that time) are from 13-20 years ago, 2 CEO's ago, and aren't relevant. Microsoft isn't the same as it was back then, I suspect less than 2% of the workforce that is there now is still there (could be wrong, I just pulled that number out of the air), but the idea stands the same. Not many employees remain that were there are that time, and it's gone under two different CEO's since then.
As for convicted monopolist, they were found guilty of "monopolization and tying" which refers specifically to Microsoft including IE into Windows, and nothing else. I didn't agree with the decision then, still don't today, and most of the claims and assumptions that the court made have since been proven false. Namely, that the court chose that look at smaller segment than it should have. Why only Intel x86 OS's? It should have looked at computers in general. Also, findings 18-29 "The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs." which was false then, and even more false now. There was products that could have substituted, Unix, Xenix, Linux, Mac OS, OS/2, and they could have done so immediately if they so chose, but consumers just didn't want them at the time, and there are even more products now. In fact, many users are realizing the they don't even want or need an Intel-compatible PC AT ALL. They get done what they want on ARM-based (not Intel x86 based) computers called phones and tablets. And yet, each and every single one of these also tie in a web browser, the exact same thing that Microsoft got "convicted" for.
I'm just wonder why Apple isn't getting convicted for the same thing for tying their web browser (AND NOT LETTING OTHERS BE INSTALLED!) on their monopoly of their tablet OSs that run on ARM or android on phones that you can't uninstall their crapware both of which come with their own browsers and is much worse than what Microsoft did.
take any .Net project programmed 10 years ago and try to get it to compile in the latest Visual Studio
Done that already. In fact, the code base was from over 13 years ago. Didn't have a problem. I use code from 10+ years ago in the latest version of Visual Studio all the time. What issue do you have?
Taking a real life .Net application and moving to a different platform is basically impossible.
No it isn't, but the project had to be written to be portable in the first place. The same is true of any application written in any language. If you write it so that it depends on libraries only available on X (or you make assumptions that are only true on X), then you can't move it to Y without first using a library that is available on both X and Y.
Or ban insurance companies, and everyone goes back to paying for their own stuff.
Well I got yelled at when I carried my 110" projection TV onto the train so I could watch a movie, so now I just use my phone.
By memory, I'm going to go with the assumption you mean RAM, and specifically RAM attached to the CPU, instead of the more generic term memory which would include any type of memory or RAM attached to other things than the CPU (HDD, SSD, video, cache, processory cache, IO buffers, etc). As this isn't RAM attached to the CPU, it's not exactly the same thing, and modern OSes don't typically blank them before handing them off, sometimes quite thankfully. It would be a major pain if every time an application tried to open a file on a HDD/SSD/etc for reading the OS blanked it out first. It would make reading config files difficult.
Secondly, it really isn't the OS that would be responsible for such a thing as the video drivers (especially the low level ones that chrome is likely using) handle GPU memory allocations, etc not the OS. Feel free to complain to your video card manufacturer that they aren't blanking memory on either allocation or deallocation or both.
You mean blank on de-allocation. Unless you are going to try and track every block you've ever used (and possibly released -- and possibly now owned by someone else) and do it at exit -- which smells like a memory leak waiting to happen. Otherwise you need to blank before de-allocating it, which depending on how much is being allocated/de-allocated could significantly impact performance.
If you mean those two lines from that jpg on the site you linked, then no. Those are the first two of four lines in the lullaby.
I think it's something like:
A kitten sits on the fence and it blinks.
It’s a very pretty song, and it’s not a long one.
Not a long one, not a short one, but just right.
Come on, little kitten, sing again.
I didn't say Comcast had a 200% profit margin on everything. Their cable services only accounts for 16% of their revenue, and the physical cable laying accounts for a small portion of that.
The rest of what you say is just niave, backwards and assumptions you pull out of a backwards model of how things actually work.
Well the point being that either you let Comcast/att/cable vision/etc have a monopoly in a city so they can recoup their capital expenses in laying fiber and then you are locked into them basically forever, or you let the city do it and then you get to choose which ISP you want.
Letting the city do it (in theory) will be much cheaper since they aren't looking for a 200% profit on the cost of laying fiber. The city will do it at cost. Then the ISPs need to be competitive because the cost to entry for serving the city in minimal.
Simply put, 20 Mbps for $30/month is a much better deal for most people than 1 Gbps for $70/month.
Then they can get DSL, Cable (maybe), Satellite, MiFi, Cellular, or whatever they call internet over power lines. 1Gbps would be fiber only.
I up your NoSQL databases with NoSecuritySQL. Not only is it webscale, but it's now it's even faster without security checks.