So as not to have to deal with the horribly invasive drivers provided by Microsoft?
You know drivers aren't necessary for USB mice right? They all use the standard USB HID Mouse driver if you don't. All the disk adds is a crappy bit of software that does the crappy button remapping stuff. Half the time it'll still keep the same mappings after uninstalling the software. I've never installed it and my MS mouse's extra buttons do forward/backward in most programs, and I tend to map mouse4 to reload in most games. Works perfectly.
Much as I'm loath to admit it, the best mouse I've ever owned was manufactured by Microsoft.
I'd have to agree. Their "IntelliMouse® Optical" (5 button version) is one of the most popular computer mice ever, to the point that they brought it back after trying to cancel it in favour of newer mice, and still sell it now. Popular with gamers because it has extra buttons and is very sensitive. It's ambidextrous. It just lasts forever. And it's dirt cheap. I have one that is five years old, and except for the scroll wheel needing cleaning out it still works like new. I also have a several-year-old updated version, the "IntelliMouse Explorer 3.0", which aside from being dark coloured and having both extra buttons on the left, is much the same.
Just don't get a wireless mouse for normal computer use, the novelty quickly wears off.
The "class A" networks (plural) each have a unique first octet between 0 and 127. i.e. each class A is 2^24 (~16 million) addresses, and there are 128 class A networks. IIRC 0... and 127... are both reserved, leaving 126. "Class B" networks have a unique first two octets, between 128.0 and 191.255. Each contain 2^16 (~65 thousand) addresses, and there are 16,384 class B networks. "Class C" networks are identified by the first 3 octets, between 192.0.0 and 223.255.255. Each has only 2^8 (256) addresses in, but there are 2 million class C networks.
There are 3 reserved address ranges for LANs, one in each class (A, B and C), but only A is a single network range from its class: 10... (A), 172.16-31.. (16xB), 192.168.. (256xC, like a B assigned from the C range).
Even better, some As and Bs have been broken up and resold, and so companies have ranges of Bs and Cs that they treat as one larger network. Some ISPs have completely discontinuous ranges that they assign IPs from to customers. Some ISPs assign IPs from the same ranges across an entire country, meaning 199.1.1.1 could be one hop from 137.2.2.2, and 1000 miles, 37 routers and 1000ms from 199.1.1.2. This makes it very difficult to work out which hosts are on the same ISP and geographically nearby by IP address alone.
Things are better under IPv6 because addresses are vaguely hierarchical, so the number of bits at the start of address that you have in common with another IP is a good measure of closeness.
The best way to tell is still to do a hop count and/or bandwidth test.
Most BitTorrent clients will prefer peers that they get a better transfer rate from, which is understandable. If you have better connectivity inside your ISP's network than to the outside, it even works as a rudimentary way of prioritising by location.
If I pay for 10Mbps download speed, it should not matter to anyone how I use those bits.
Stop stop stop! You're not paying for "10Mbps download speed", you're paying for one of: "Up To" 10Mbps (may never get this due to the line or may be traffic shaped, but even if you get it you'll never have it 24/7 continuously) a 10Mbps line, but not 10Mbps download speed
If you want to be able to download at 10Mbps 24/7 then pay for that! Take your business away from the ISPs that advertise "10Mbps unlimited" and actually deliver one of the above two. If your ISP does advertise "up to 10Mbps" (even if it's "unlimited") and they shape you, you're getting exactly what was advertised. Stop complaining.
It carries a lot of his themes, EXCEPT for the robots not going on murderous rampages.
The "0th" law was invented by the robots, as much as they wanted it to it couldn't supersede the original 1st law. Even if it did, unless someone posed an actual threat to humanity as a whole, it wouldn't have applied and they would have acted based on the other laws. i.e. NOT KILLED ANYONE.
When faced with a potential conflict of the laws, such as killing someone to save others, they just broke down, because anti-killing was so hard-wired into them.
"I, Robot" was just an Azimov-themed Hollywood robot-rampage movie, it wasn't an "Hollywood-made Azimov robot movie". It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't Azimov, that's what we don't like. We were LIED TO.
I expect it to be cleaner and safer to drink than water piped from an open reservoir through pipes buried in the ground that may or may not be leaking.
Intel handled (I think they still do) all IPC (Inter-Processor Communication) through the FSB. Which is also the ram bus, and so runs at ram speed. They even did this for inter-core communication, completely screwing any attempts to scale a single intel system to lots of cores and have it still run well. AMD have 3 independent buses, an inter-core comms for multi-core cpus (runs at cpu clock speed), hypertransport for inter-cpu comms and device comms (runs at multiple GHz independent of CPU speed), and an independent ram bus (runs at ram speed, obviously). This means that an AMD system gains real performance pretty linearly with the number of cores and cpus, and an Intel one didn't.
Intel countered by massively increasing their ram speed, countering the FSB bottleneck for smaller (2 or 4 cores) systems, and by making their cpus capable of more instructions per clock than AMD cpus (a real surprise when it happened), giving them great single-threaded performance. AMD couldn't match the performance of the most powerful Intel Core 2 cpus, so went for energy efficiency in a big way, and generally tried to undercut (instead of outperform) Intel at every turn. AMD's cache architecture was better too, with data not duplicated in all levels of the cache, so AMD cpus effectively had 10% more cache compared to Intel cpus. Intel countered by adding lots more cache to their cpus. AMD also went for forward and backward compatibility in a big way, a BIOS update (and sometimes not even that) is all that is needed to make the oldest socket 939 boards work with the newest AMD cpus. You lose out on a few features (e.g. faster HT and ram), but it makes upgrading an AMD machine much cheaper.
This leaves us with the situation where AMD cpus are great for highly-communicating parallel operations, and are great in clusters and datacenters due to having higher performance per watt (so they cost less to run and need less cooling). They also make for cheaper desktop systems both to build and to run, important if you're on a budget. Intel cpus are great for ram performance, and high-speed single-threaded ops, important if you are building a super-powerful gaming rig. Intel's pushing of their on-board graphics chipsets has also caused Intel cpus to end up in a lot of pre-built machines.
Though to be honest, You don't need a cpu costing more than £60 to play anything released recently at full speed, and AMD is incredibly competitive at those prices (e.g. my AMD X2 5600). The real expense is in graphics these days, though my 2-generation-old nVidia 8800 (rev 1) GTS 320MB hasn't struggled on anything I've bought recently, even on high settings...
Looks like the performance race might be slowing, unless someone comes up with a cheap, working holographic projector:)
I personally think the most impressive virus was CIH, which could be considered to be zero bytes in size, due to the fact that it didn't increase the size of executables it infected. It didn't damage them either, it filled alignment gaps in the PE (.exe) file format, making the infected exe "denser" than the uninfected one. Pretty clever.
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/322/ It's about joking about females on the internet, but joking about "no" females on the internet is the same offensive crap that drives them away. How would you feel if someone told you you didn't exist?
Your mind seems to be closed to the possibility that it was written by god. Why? For all we know, one of the religions (or even several) ARE right, and there is a god, or multiple gods, or even no god.
"Keep an open mind", that's one of the core phrases in science.
Due to a strange quirk in the way compilers are designed, it's (MUCH) faster to build a dozen files that include every file in your project than to build thousands of files.
Once build times are down to 5 - 15 minutes you don't need distributed compiling. The link step is typically the most expensive anyway, so distributed compiling doesn't get you much.
It's listing the "fast" version as part of the same process, which uses S3, leaving the ram powered when the rest of the pc is off to allow an extremely quick "boot". There's no way you can only take an image once if you're using S3, because it uses whatever is in ram, not a file on disk.
It could be loading a hibernate style image into ram after Windows has shut down and then going into S3, but as they don't say that they are doing that it's more likely that the "reboot (once)" on their chart is misleading.
No, it's stupider than that. They're just making it so that when you ask for a shutdown your pc reboots and then hibernates. The image is always fresh that way, but you end up with a really long "shutdown" time.
No, it's not an image of a freshly booted system as such. It's just that when you press "shutdown for fast boot" it restarts and then hibernates. Because it takes a new hibernate image every shutdown, system updates are applied fine.
I don't see what's wrong with just using normal hibernate or standby though, I never had any trouble with either.
I use standby all the time, rebooting only when an installer* or Windows update requires it. I'm running XP x64, and haven't had any problems with standby for years. *Note: most installers that offer you a reboot option don't require it, whatever they've installed will normally run fine without rebooting.
Also, (sorry about another post) they couldn't advertise "not worrying about losing your data if there is a power cut" if the image was taken straight after boot, because it wouldn't have any of your data in it, just OS stuff.
I haven't seen any evidence of this. Plus, that wouldn't be something you could do from a motherboard.
What's your explanation for the fast boot? The warning about not powering off is clearly because it's keeping the ram powered, exactly the same as ordinary S3/standby.
Slashdot Mirror
Get the xbox 360 version of portal (in the orange box) then.
So as not to have to deal with the horribly invasive drivers provided by Microsoft?
You know drivers aren't necessary for USB mice right? They all use the standard USB HID Mouse driver if you don't. All the disk adds is a crappy bit of software that does the crappy button remapping stuff. Half the time it'll still keep the same mappings after uninstalling the software. I've never installed it and my MS mouse's extra buttons do forward/backward in most programs, and I tend to map mouse4 to reload in most games. Works perfectly.
Much as I'm loath to admit it, the best mouse I've ever owned was manufactured by Microsoft.
I'd have to agree.
Their "IntelliMouse® Optical" (5 button version) is one of the most popular computer mice ever, to the point that they brought it back after trying to cancel it in favour of newer mice, and still sell it now. Popular with gamers because it has extra buttons and is very sensitive. It's ambidextrous. It just lasts forever. And it's dirt cheap.
I have one that is five years old, and except for the scroll wheel needing cleaning out it still works like new.
I also have a several-year-old updated version, the "IntelliMouse Explorer 3.0", which aside from being dark coloured and having both extra buttons on the left, is much the same.
Just don't get a wireless mouse for normal computer use, the novelty quickly wears off.
You misread.
The "class A" networks (plural) each have a unique first octet between 0 and 127. i.e. each class A is 2^24 (~16 million) addresses, and there are 128 class A networks. IIRC 0... and 127... are both reserved, leaving 126.
"Class B" networks have a unique first two octets, between 128.0 and 191.255. Each contain 2^16 (~65 thousand) addresses, and there are 16,384 class B networks.
"Class C" networks are identified by the first 3 octets, between 192.0.0 and 223.255.255. Each has only 2^8 (256) addresses in, but there are 2 million class C networks.
There are 3 reserved address ranges for LANs, one in each class (A, B and C), but only A is a single network range from its class: 10... (A), 172.16-31.. (16xB), 192.168.. (256xC, like a B assigned from the C range).
Even better, some As and Bs have been broken up and resold, and so companies have ranges of Bs and Cs that they treat as one larger network. Some ISPs have completely discontinuous ranges that they assign IPs from to customers. Some ISPs assign IPs from the same ranges across an entire country, meaning 199.1.1.1 could be one hop from 137.2.2.2, and 1000 miles, 37 routers and 1000ms from 199.1.1.2. This makes it very difficult to work out which hosts are on the same ISP and geographically nearby by IP address alone.
Things are better under IPv6 because addresses are vaguely hierarchical, so the number of bits at the start of address that you have in common with another IP is a good measure of closeness.
The best way to tell is still to do a hop count and/or bandwidth test.
Most BitTorrent clients will prefer peers that they get a better transfer rate from, which is understandable. If you have better connectivity inside your ISP's network than to the outside, it even works as a rudimentary way of prioritising by location.
If I pay for 10Mbps download speed, it should not matter to anyone how I use those bits.
Stop stop stop! You're not paying for "10Mbps download speed", you're paying for one of:
"Up To" 10Mbps (may never get this due to the line or may be traffic shaped, but even if you get it you'll never have it 24/7 continuously)
a 10Mbps line, but not 10Mbps download speed
If you want to be able to download at 10Mbps 24/7 then pay for that! Take your business away from the ISPs that advertise "10Mbps unlimited" and actually deliver one of the above two. If your ISP does advertise "up to 10Mbps" (even if it's "unlimited") and they shape you, you're getting exactly what was advertised. Stop complaining.
It carries a lot of his themes, EXCEPT for the robots not going on murderous rampages.
The "0th" law was invented by the robots, as much as they wanted it to it couldn't supersede the original 1st law. Even if it did, unless someone posed an actual threat to humanity as a whole, it wouldn't have applied and they would have acted based on the other laws. i.e. NOT KILLED ANYONE.
When faced with a potential conflict of the laws, such as killing someone to save others, they just broke down, because anti-killing was so hard-wired into them.
"I, Robot" was just an Azimov-themed Hollywood robot-rampage movie, it wasn't an "Hollywood-made Azimov robot movie". It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't Azimov, that's what we don't like. We were LIED TO.
Is there any free circuit simulation software that includes simulated memristors for me to fool about with?
I still don't get quite how they work.
What's wrong with a shotgun to the face?
Put me in a room with a bear, repeat a hundred times and see who comes out on top. Doesn't mean the bear is smarter.
That depends. Do you get a shotgun?
I expect it to be cleaner and safer to drink than water piped from an open reservoir through pipes buried in the ground that may or may not be leaking.
Whoops, I meant AM2 onwards :S
Intel handled (I think they still do) all IPC (Inter-Processor Communication) through the FSB. Which is also the ram bus, and so runs at ram speed. They even did this for inter-core communication, completely screwing any attempts to scale a single intel system to lots of cores and have it still run well.
AMD have 3 independent buses, an inter-core comms for multi-core cpus (runs at cpu clock speed), hypertransport for inter-cpu comms and device comms (runs at multiple GHz independent of CPU speed), and an independent ram bus (runs at ram speed, obviously). This means that an AMD system gains real performance pretty linearly with the number of cores and cpus, and an Intel one didn't.
Intel countered by massively increasing their ram speed, countering the FSB bottleneck for smaller (2 or 4 cores) systems, and by making their cpus capable of more instructions per clock than AMD cpus (a real surprise when it happened), giving them great single-threaded performance. AMD couldn't match the performance of the most powerful Intel Core 2 cpus, so went for energy efficiency in a big way, and generally tried to undercut (instead of outperform) Intel at every turn. AMD's cache architecture was better too, with data not duplicated in all levels of the cache, so AMD cpus effectively had 10% more cache compared to Intel cpus. Intel countered by adding lots more cache to their cpus. AMD also went for forward and backward compatibility in a big way, a BIOS update (and sometimes not even that) is all that is needed to make the oldest socket 939 boards work with the newest AMD cpus. You lose out on a few features (e.g. faster HT and ram), but it makes upgrading an AMD machine much cheaper.
This leaves us with the situation where AMD cpus are great for highly-communicating parallel operations, and are great in clusters and datacenters due to having higher performance per watt (so they cost less to run and need less cooling). They also make for cheaper desktop systems both to build and to run, important if you're on a budget. Intel cpus are great for ram performance, and high-speed single-threaded ops, important if you are building a super-powerful gaming rig. Intel's pushing of their on-board graphics chipsets has also caused Intel cpus to end up in a lot of pre-built machines.
Though to be honest, You don't need a cpu costing more than £60 to play anything released recently at full speed, and AMD is incredibly competitive at those prices (e.g. my AMD X2 5600). The real expense is in graphics these days, though my 2-generation-old nVidia 8800 (rev 1) GTS 320MB hasn't struggled on anything I've bought recently, even on high settings...
Looks like the performance race might be slowing, unless someone comes up with a cheap, working holographic projector :)
I personally think the most impressive virus was CIH, which could be considered to be zero bytes in size, due to the fact that it didn't increase the size of executables it infected. It didn't damage them either, it filled alignment gaps in the PE (.exe) file format, making the infected exe "denser" than the uninfected one. Pretty clever.
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/322/
It's about joking about females on the internet, but joking about "no" females on the internet is the same offensive crap that drives them away. How would you feel if someone told you you didn't exist?
Your mind seems to be closed to the possibility that it was written by god. Why?
For all we know, one of the religions (or even several) ARE right, and there is a god, or multiple gods, or even no god.
"Keep an open mind", that's one of the core phrases in science.
Or link-time code generation if you have that level of optimization turned on.
Due to a strange quirk in the way compilers are designed, it's (MUCH) faster to build a dozen files that include every file in your project than to build thousands of files.
Once build times are down to 5 - 15 minutes you don't need distributed compiling. The link step is typically the most expensive anyway, so distributed compiling doesn't get you much.
What are you saying, nVidia chipsets rock!
We've had someone stick up for amd, and now for nvidia. Anyone want to stick up for via chipsets? anyone? oh...
It's listing the "fast" version as part of the same process, which uses S3, leaving the ram powered when the rest of the pc is off to allow an extremely quick "boot". There's no way you can only take an image once if you're using S3, because it uses whatever is in ram, not a file on disk.
It could be loading a hibernate style image into ram after Windows has shut down and then going into S3, but as they don't say that they are doing that it's more likely that the "reboot (once)" on their chart is misleading.
I just checked, it says it reboots once.
No, it's stupider than that. They're just making it so that when you ask for a shutdown your pc reboots and then hibernates. The image is always fresh that way, but you end up with a really long "shutdown" time.
No, it's not an image of a freshly booted system as such. It's just that when you press "shutdown for fast boot" it restarts and then hibernates.
Because it takes a new hibernate image every shutdown, system updates are applied fine.
I don't see what's wrong with just using normal hibernate or standby though, I never had any trouble with either.
I use standby all the time, rebooting only when an installer* or Windows update requires it. I'm running XP x64, and haven't had any problems with standby for years.
*Note: most installers that offer you a reboot option don't require it, whatever they've installed will normally run fine without rebooting.
Also, (sorry about another post) they couldn't advertise "not worrying about losing your data if there is a power cut" if the image was taken straight after boot, because it wouldn't have any of your data in it, just OS stuff.
I haven't seen any evidence of this. Plus, that wouldn't be something you could do from a motherboard.
What's your explanation for the fast boot? The warning about not powering off is clearly because it's keeping the ram powered, exactly the same as ordinary S3/standby.