 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:491c9f6f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Damn. My *desktop* only has a GeForce 7900GT. o_O
I've got an 8800 in my new one.
> paid for your laptop, do I?
It was about $1800 and that was just over a year ago.
Intel Core 2 Duo 2GHz
2 GB memory
2x120 GB hard drives
1x HD drive/multi-format CD/DVD read/write
17" screen
Very nice notebook. Heavy though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...so, rather like real Oracle backups then.
>>
>> Presumably the guy did a little researching on Oracle and found *a*
>> way to make a copy of the data, and that's what we're using.
>>
>> Using a logical backup rather than a physical backup does take up less
>> disk space. However, it takes more time to backup and restore (and
>> these operations are logged transactions, and triggers can fire, etc.)
>> Myself I'd prefer a real physical backup...
>>
> How much diskspace are we talking about? Remember current price is about
I have no idea how large their database is. I only know how big my one is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, you say all that, but if I do the same operation using the CLI
>> instead, it's instantaneous.
>
> I don't know about NT-era OSes, but I remember that for a long time, the
> CLI used the DOS 1.0 interface for deleting files, because it let you
> specify wildcards. Hence, you had one kernel call that would delete all
> the files.
>
> If you use a UNIX-like interface, you have to do "find file, delete
> file, find file, delete file, find file, delete file, ...." So on a
> directory with a half-million files, you scan the thing a quarter
> million times on average (on ext3, at least) or you at least wind up
> doing a whole bunch of kernel calls if you have a file system that's a
> little better organized about the file layout.
Seems like it's the same amount of work to me, whether the kernel does
it or the application does it.
> To be fair, NTFS and
> other tree-based directory systems have to rework the tree when you
> delete the files, so this too will be disk I/O overhead.
Um... you don't cache directory blocks, no? (Especially given that
they're usually non-contiguous and so take a lot of thrashing to access,
and there often heavily accessed.)
>> Dude... where do you even buy that much disk space??
>
> Fry's. Best Buy. Circuit City. Any place that sells hard drives. Go down
> to the store, shell out $500, and pick up a couple terabytes.
$500 seems like a hell of a lot of money to me...
But then, 1 TB seems like a hell of a lot of space too. I have 0.3 TB
that I've never come close to filling yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> you paid for your laptop, do I?
>
> It was about $1800 and that was just over a year ago.
>
> Very nice notebook. Heavy though.
Damn. For that price, it *should* be nice! o_O
Still... much cheaper than a Mac I guess...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> You can get 7.1 surround sound, mpeg encoders and decoders, and hardware
> accelerated 3D in cell phones nowadays, dear. :-)
What would be the point though?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You can get 7.1 surround sound, mpeg encoders and decoders, and hardware
>> accelerated 3D in cell phones nowadays, dear. :-)
>
> What would be the point though?
Not sure about the 7.1 sound, but being able to record and view movie clips
is pretty useful. The point of hardware 3D acceleration is the same as for
desktop and laptop machines, it allows you to get higher quality visuals
than is possible in software without an insanely clocked CPU. Pick up one
of the latest mobile phones, you'll see that a lot have some sort of 3D game
coming as standard (mine has 3D rally or some sort). The graphics look like
it's running on a PC without a 3D accelerator (no texture filtering with
very low detail models). I'm sure that will improve.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> You can get 7.1 surround sound, mpeg encoders and decoders, and
>>> hardware accelerated 3D in cell phones nowadays, dear. :-)
>>
>> What would be the point though?
>
> Not sure about the 7.1 sound, but being able to record and view movie
> clips is pretty useful. The point of hardware 3D acceleration is the
> same as for desktop and laptop machines.
On a 40 mm screen? Why bother?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On a 40 mm screen? Why bother?
Becuase you usually hold it way closer to your eyes than a typical desktop
monitor.
Have you seen an iPhone or the wave of similarly designed phones? They have
480x320 pixel displays or higher, which is not so far away from what full
size computers were once upon a time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Have you seen an iPhone or the wave of similarly designed phones? They
> have 480x320 pixel displays or higher, which is not so far away from
> what full size computers were once upon a time.
iPhone?
That's not a phone - it's a hand-held computer with built-in GSM! :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> iPhone?
>
> That's not a phone - it's a hand-held computer with built-in GSM! :-P
Did you look in a phone shop recently? Most phones have large high
resolution displays and are capable of far more than just phone calls.
I just got a new handset because my old one was really scratched and falling
apart. It cost just over ?200 and has a large screen, it even has WLAN
built in! I did look at another one that had GPS (but no WLAN) but I
decided the WLAN would be more actual use to me than GPS. THe one with WLAN
and GPS was quite a bit more expensive and I didn't like the look of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
