Invisible wrote:
> Wouldn't scrolling the file take more than the linetime of the universe?

Errr, no?  If you turn off the syntax highlighting, it takes about 90 
seconds to load and maybe 2 minutes to save. Much less time then trying 
to get the head/tail arguments correct, even assuming they support the 
kind of trimming you're trying to do.  (I forget which, but there's one 
combination out of the obvious four that isn't supported.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:31:13 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> On the subject of licensed software and the tight grip the license
> holders have on them, I wish ATRAC were an open standard and prevalent
> instead of MP3. It's a much better algortihm, but Sony wants to keep it
> all to itself.

MP3 isn't actually an open standard either.  It's a de facto standard, 
but Frauenhoffer (sp?) expect software developers writing encoders (and 
possibly decoders, don't recall the specifics offhand) to pay license 
fees.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:52:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> 2. Last time I checked, 1 GB is about £180. That's not my idea of
> "cheap".

Depends on the memory technology used.  I upgraded a machine here from 1 
GB to 2 GB for about US$55 - about 25 GBP IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:03:29 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Other than audio and video data (which is inherantly large), I can't
> think of anything you can do with a computer that actually uses much
> memory. Playing games involves audio and video data, but I'm
> hard-pressed to think of anything else...

Virtualization of multiple OSes.  Lots of people use VMware for testbeds 
and such, that takes a good amount of memory.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> MP3 isn't actually an open standard either.  It's a de facto standard, 
> but Frauenhoffer (sp?) expect software developers writing encoders (and 
> possibly decoders, don't recall the specifics offhand) to pay license 
> fees.

  That's the reason why many small software houses prefer using the ogg
format, as it's completely free.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

In article <48737522$1@news.povray.org>, voi### [at] devnull says...
> >> Other than audio and video data (which is inherantly large), I can't t
hink 
> >> of anything you can do with a computer that actually uses much memory.
> > 
> > At least, having a lot of memory lets you open many RAM-hungry apps at 
the 
> > same time. I can have FinalRender gobbling memory to render a huge scen
e and 
> > still be able to edit images with Photoshop while having Firefox opened
 with 
> > lots of tabs etc. Also, there are many professional applications where 
more 
> > RAM = bigger whatever is the goal of the application. I'm working wit
h 
> > linear programming for instance, and more RAM = larger models.
> 
> OK, but all of what you've described is pretty unusual for home use.
> 
> Sure, I run flam3, which eats RAM like candy. But that's because I'm a 
> nerd. Normal humans don't do things like that.
> 
> At any rate, none of this explains why *Vista*, by itself, requires 
> multiple gigabytes of RAM. (And therefore, presumably, if you want to 
> run *real applications* that require gigs of RAM, you have to add even 
> more RAM to your system to accomodate them!)
> 
Well. How about something slightly normal, like having Firefox open with 
tabs for information sites, while also running the game engine, and 
running a program that tracks you combat kills, to tell you how much 
damage you are doing, while storing that data for later use in a MySQL 
file. Or are 99.9% of the people playing EQ2 "not normal" by your 
standard?

And that doesn't even go into people running something like Second Life, 
where the only people not trying to design things (i.e. having graphics 
editors, Photo Shop, etc., open are either a) using free acounts and 
can't afford the software, or b) bots designed to up the traffic stats 
on sims.

I could go one, but the point is, if you play games, your probably going 
to need that 1GB to "run the game", and the second to do anything else 
at the same time. If you play games for something that *supports* over 
1GB per application, how long do you "really" think its going to be 
before you need it to run at all? Since, you know, that drives hardware 
requirements "way" more than MS making bloatware.

You might be surprised what "normal" people need on their system. lol

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:22:38 -0400, Warp wrote:

>> MP3 isn't actually an open standard either.  It's a de facto standard,
>> but Frauenhoffer (sp?) expect software developers writing encoders (and
>> possibly decoders, don't recall the specifics offhand) to pay license
>> fees.
> 
>   That's the reason why many small software houses prefer using the ogg
> format, as it's completely free.

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> I could go one, but the point is, if you play games, your probably going 
> to need that 1GB to "run the game", and the second to do anything else 
> at the same time.

Sure. If you're running an intensive game, you're going to need the 
hardware to handle it. (Not sure why you'd be running something else at 
the same time as a game, but hey...)

Still doesn't explain why Vista should waste 2 GB of your RAM rather 
than let your intensive game use it for itself...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Other than audio and video data (which is inherantly large), I can't
>> think of anything you can do with a computer that actually uses much
>> memory. Playing games involves audio and video data, but I'm
>> hard-pressed to think of anything else...
> 
> Virtualization of multiple OSes.  Lots of people use VMware for testbeds 
> and such, that takes a good amount of memory.

Surely you'd only *attempt* such a thing on an extremely high-end server 
though? (Recall that Vista is a desktop OS.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:45:25 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Other than audio and video data (which is inherantly large), I can't
>>> think of anything you can do with a computer that actually uses much
>>> memory. Playing games involves audio and video data, but I'm
>>> hard-pressed to think of anything else...
>> 
>> Virtualization of multiple OSes.  Lots of people use VMware for
>> testbeds and such, that takes a good amount of memory.
> 
> Surely you'd only *attempt* such a thing on an extremely high-end server
> though? (Recall that Vista is a desktop OS.)

Nope.  IT classrooms typically buy the cheapest hardware they can 
possibly purchase - usually desktop machines - and then run a virtual 
server envrionment.

For lab work, high-end hardware is typically also not used unless 
hardware duplication needs to be done for testing.  Many of the machines 
I've used in labs have been discarded desktops for users who upgraded to 
better machines.  Old Compaq Deskpro machines and the like.

I have a Compaq EVO 600 sitting here on my desk at home that's running 
VMware Server, and on my Linux laptops, I have VMware Workstation 
installed so I can have access to Windows for the one or two odd 
occasions where I absolutely must have it (and I hate having to use it at 
all).  Without the 2 GB of RAM in my laptop, I wouldn't be able to do 
that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message