I just got a new desktop, installed windows on a fat partition on SATA-1, flipped the boot order and put BSD on SATA-2. Gonna use windows for installing apps, and Wine for running them.
None of those things make it impossible, and none of them make it require a significantly larger form factor than micro-atx/dtx/itx board (except the dedicated video memory slots, which could be optional in smaller boards). So, no I didn't miss the point your trying to make. I'm just suggesting that some people have different priorities. I would love to have a board like the one I described.
And I described an importance, a big one in fact. It's the same importance that has people making new mobo form factors... You missed the point, entirely.
This doesn't take up one of your expansion slots, since you already have the graphic-out ports on the motherboard in such solutions. Meaning in a small-form-factor machine, you have one more option for tweaking the system to what you want/need.
Will Intel be clever enough and innovative enough to have a "GPU" socket on such motherboards? Maybe even GPU-specific memory sockets rather than shared memory?
next thing you know, they'll be using OSS editing tools then servers... After that? It'll be pandemonium, they'll be joyfully frolicking in the free and open streets... Arms flailing, chainsaws revved...
There's this process called extrapolation. It's not perfect, but it'll get the job done.
Basically, you test, say, 1000 hard drives for 2 years and you find:
1 fails in the first 8 months... 1 fails in the next 4 months... 1 fails in the next 2 months... 1 fails in the next 1 month...
even after the first two or three you can expect a mean failure time of 15.5 months. This however does take into assumption a bell shaped probability curve. With enough evidence they should be able to know the shape of the drive-failure-probability curve.
I couldn't find any of these... But I could be missing something
(1) Does it provide something that is not encompassed by one of MicroATX, MiniITX or ATX (2) Does combine advantages of any of the above listed form factors?
Ahh, but that's "free as in beer" software... Not necessarily open source software
There's a lot of free as in beer software that isn't open source. A normal user could care less if it's
free as in beer + free as in source access or free as in beer + closed as in source access
I agree, though it's not always the case, OSS generally does do better given enough time... But earlier on, I've found closed source projects tend to get better financing and startup. Then the beurocracy makes the throw-money-at-it approache less effective than the OSS throw-time-at-it approach.
Part of the nice "features" of commercial software (where most non-OSS is admittedly, and most OSS isn't), is that it has a certain amount of market pressure to be of a minimum quality, or it doesn't last long. You can find dozens of crap OSS projects on a certain topic before you find one that is good. Again, this isn't always the case, but it seems to be frequently such.
In some cases yes, in some cases no. There's a lot that goes into the development of a piece of software. In the end it amounts to this:
what group did the software development setup aggregate for creation of said software?
If it aggregated a good group, then the software will be good.
Different groups are aggregated to different styles. Some styles seemed to have worked better Open Source, others closed source. Its way to dynamic of a subject to drop onto one categorization though.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I forgot :-(
I loose at slashdot, and am now -1 blond.
sounds painful. XP should have at least 256MB of RAM. 128MB works but HURTSBADLYOMFGPLEASEMAKEITSTOP.
Less than 128 requires you to tweak it by turning off a lot of services.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
.|. /.\
Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.
\o/
Apparantly a stick figure of me raising my hand is a bad thing.
actaully, that machine could very easily run Vista if you don't mind turning off Aero. Vistas requirements aren't much higher than XPs without Aero.
I have seen XP running on a 200Mhz CPU with 256MB of memory, just as a rough metric.
4 RWs, cycling. 2 For FreeBSD (x86, x86-64), and 2 for Linux (whicheverdistro someone has convinced me to try out recently).
They don't go in the trash.
So far, most of my games like Wine :-)
I just got a new desktop, installed windows on a fat partition on SATA-1, flipped the boot order and put BSD on SATA-2. Gonna use windows for installing apps, and Wine for running them.
Sorry, I was busy not giving a damn.
slow down cowboy! 2008? Isn't it a bit risky to go that fast?
Note: as much as that may read like sarcasm, it wasn't. I'm quite serious.
You're migrating to vista then? I plan on dropping windows then and completely converting to FreeBSD.
what attitude? Your inability to detect sarcasm and humor?
Slashdotters, known to not have SOs, are believed to have caused a great innacuracy/bias in this report.
None of those things make it impossible, and none of them make it require a significantly larger form factor than micro-atx/dtx/itx board (except the dedicated video memory slots, which could be optional in smaller boards). So, no I didn't miss the point your trying to make. I'm just suggesting that some people have different priorities. I would love to have a board like the one I described.
And I described an importance, a big one in fact. It's the same importance that has people making new mobo form factors... You missed the point, entirely.
you missed the point entirely.
This doesn't take up one of your expansion slots, since you already have the graphic-out ports on the motherboard in such solutions. Meaning in a small-form-factor machine, you have one more option for tweaking the system to what you want/need.
Will Intel be clever enough and innovative enough to have a "GPU" socket on such motherboards? Maybe even GPU-specific memory sockets rather than shared memory?
One can always hope.
next thing you know, they'll be using OSS editing tools
then servers...
After that?
It'll be pandemonium, they'll be joyfully frolicking in the free and open streets... Arms flailing, chainsaws revved...
There's this process called extrapolation. It's not perfect, but it'll get the job done.
Basically, you test, say, 1000 hard drives for 2 years and you find:
1 fails in the first 8 months...
1 fails in the next 4 months...
1 fails in the next 2 months...
1 fails in the next 1 month...
even after the first two or three you can expect a mean failure time of 15.5 months. This however does take into assumption a bell shaped probability curve. With enough evidence they should be able to know the shape of the drive-failure-probability curve.
you can follow the pattern to determine
Yeah, well, all it takes is once...
Agreed, the first one looks real good... I can't wait.
I really don't even want to think about watching the second one. That is painful enough... But to actually watch it..
oh god! I'm thinking about it... *cringe*
or they are filled with mutant slugs that always point the part of the body they plan to shoot out of towards you...
That reminded me of Deus Ex for the PC...
Except I was usually throwing the bodies at the guards.
If he thinks the DoD is gonna contract to someone that efficient, he's off his rocker.
He won't get a contract on suits who's initial models cost any less than $1M/ea
I couldn't find any of these... But I could be missing something
(1) Does it provide something that is not encompassed by one of MicroATX, MiniITX or ATX
(2) Does combine advantages of any of the above listed form factors?
Ahh, but that's "free as in beer" software... Not necessarily open source software
There's a lot of free as in beer software that isn't open source. A normal user could care less if it's
free as in beer + free as in source access
or
free as in beer + closed as in source access
I agree, though it's not always the case, OSS generally does do better given enough time... But earlier on, I've found closed source projects tend to get better financing and startup. Then the beurocracy makes the throw-money-at-it approache less effective than the OSS throw-time-at-it approach.
Part of the nice "features" of commercial software (where most non-OSS is admittedly, and most OSS isn't), is that it has a certain amount of market pressure to be of a minimum quality, or it doesn't last long. You can find dozens of crap OSS projects on a certain topic before you find one that is good. Again, this isn't always the case, but it seems to be frequently such.
In some cases yes, in some cases no. There's a lot that goes into the development of a piece of software. In the end it amounts to this:
what group did the software development setup aggregate for creation of said software?
If it aggregated a good group, then the software will be good.
Different groups are aggregated to different styles. Some styles seemed to have worked better Open Source, others closed source. Its way to dynamic of a subject to drop onto one categorization though.