|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I remember that. You could also reprogram both hercules graphics cards
>> and Radio Shack TRS-80 Model II machines to turn off the H and V refresh
>> on the video, overheating the spot in the middle of the screen until the
>> tube cracked.
>
> Nnnice. That must have made a nice cracking sound :).
The one time I saw it done to a TRS, the glass went all over. More a
"poomf" sound, really.
> Yep, pure business. I'm pretty sure if I was running a company like
> Nvidia I'd work exactly the same. I might do some time-shifting for the
> drivers, but releasing Vista-drivers for G400-aged card... No way.
I don't know how far back they really go, but I remember it was least a
couple of generations. And, of course, it's a thing that's easy to point
out, unlike (say) reliability. You just point to the web pages and say
"See? We do that."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Linux really costs a _lot_ more than $40
Date: 2 Nov 2008 13:32:27
Message: <490df23a@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, I've read a few stories about the newest Ubuntu (8.10 IIRC)
> delivery that state that the benchmarks are slower than the previous
> version.
OTOH, I read about a developer who quit contributing to the Linux kernel
because he was tired about devs caring about companies saying
$BULLSHT_BENCHMARK now gives lower results, instead of caring about the
desktop becoming faster for users. (it was about lowering latency and
improving the process scheduler, which would give better speed to the
desktop)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Linux really costs a _lot_ more than $40
Date: 2 Nov 2008 14:36:07
Message: <490e0127@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:35:04 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> JUst a thought, does the device have a SSD drive in it? Or does it run
>> completely over the network?
>
> Completely over network. It's a low-budget system, built from leftovers
> - AMD Athlon 1,2GHz, 768MiB, Matrox G400 16MiB, Intel EtherExpress
> Pro/100+, some random case, Gentoo Linux. The PSU still makes slight
> noise.
Cool, I've been thinking about putting a system like this together, this
is a useful parts list. :-) How's it work for you?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Linux really costs a _lot_ more than $40
Date: 2 Nov 2008 14:37:44
Message: <490e0188@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:21:15 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Well, it asks once per process you invoke with admin rights, just like
> sudo.
That wasn't my experience - or rather, once per program wasn't my
experience. This was pre-Vista SP1, though, so it's very possible the
behaviour changed at that point.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:33:39 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, I've read a few stories about the newest Ubuntu (8.10 IIRC)
>> delivery that state that the benchmarks are slower than the previous
>> version.
>
> OTOH, I read about a developer who quit contributing to the Linux kernel
> because he was tired about devs caring about companies saying
> $BULLSHT_BENCHMARK now gives lower results, instead of caring about the
> desktop becoming faster for users. (it was about lowering latency and
> improving the process scheduler, which would give better speed to the
> desktop)
I hadn't read that one...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:21:15 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
> > Well, it asks once per process you invoke with admin rights, just like
> > sudo.
>
> That wasn't my experience - or rather, once per program wasn't my
> experience. This was pre-Vista SP1, though, so it's very possible the
> behaviour changed at that point.
Nope. Every damn time you open the same program...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:53:50 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:21:15 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> > Well, it asks once per process you invoke with admin rights, just
>> > like sudo.
>>
>> That wasn't my experience - or rather, once per program wasn't my
>> experience. This was pre-Vista SP1, though, so it's very possible the
>> behaviour changed at that point.
>
> Nope. Every damn time you open the same program...
Well, that's what I meant. I had situations where it asked me two and
three times about specific things the program wanted to do (like VNC).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Well, it asks once per process you invoke with admin rights, just
>> Nope. Every damn time you open the same program...
That would be "once per process", where "process" is used in the
technical sense there.
> Well, that's what I meant. I had situations where it asked me two and
> three times about specific things the program wanted to do (like VNC).
I'll be installing VNC, so I'll see. Of course, if you know it's going
to do this, you can start it with rights in the first place, but that
doesn't help the first times you run it. I'm still working on getting
everything set up the way I want it, so I haven't gotten very far in the
process of being annoyed by Vista yet ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:36:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Well, it asks once per process you invoke with admin rights, just
>
>>> Nope. Every damn time you open the same program...
>
> That would be "once per process", where "process" is used in the
> technical sense there.
>
>> Well, that's what I meant. I had situations where it asked me two and
>> three times about specific things the program wanted to do (like VNC).
>
> I'll be installing VNC, so I'll see. Of course, if you know it's going
> to do this, you can start it with rights in the first place, but that
> doesn't help the first times you run it. I'm still working on getting
> everything set up the way I want it, so I haven't gotten very far in the
> process of being annoyed by Vista yet ;-)
I probably mentioned it before, but my annoyance at Vista was pretty
extreme - was pulling video off my DVR via firewire, and silly me, I
thought I could run it headless. Disabled the firewall, UAC, installed
TightVNC and set it up to autostart, set up autologin, background to
solid black...everything was perfect.
Rebooted the system and it started as expected.
Shut down, took the system to the room with the TV and plugged it in.
Powered it up.
Couldn't connect to it remotely via VNC.
Eventually went and got a keyboard and monitor and plugged in - Vista had
reverted *every* *damned* *change* *I* *made*. I'm surprised it didn't
uninstall TightVNC. But sure enough, UAC enabled, autologin turned off,
background restored, firewall reenabled - all of it.
That's the last time I ran it. Well, no, tell a lie, I installed the 64-
bit version in a VM so I could extract the wireless drivers for the
wireless NIC in the machine using ndiswrapper - HP very *helpfully*
requires that you use the actual OS the drivers are written for in order
to extract them. I wasn't real happy about that either.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
>> What really annoys me the most is that I'm quite sure I turned the
>> damned UAC feature off...
>
> I believe you. I don't have a whole lot of experience with it yet. I
> just have to say it hasn't annoyed *me* yet, except for the broken
> software crap that came with the computer.
Hmm, odd. I'm seeing html sources on IE7 with notepad just now without
problems or questions. I took a look at my UAC, and it was ON! It's
more schizophrenic than I thought! It's now faking to be a fine OS... :P
Ok, once I installed Firefox, I haven't used IE in a while. I only
really used it in the first few days post migration. Perhaps SP1 did
improve things a bit, I guess...
Our memory can betray us sometimes. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|