 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> *possible* to have more than two monitors.
>>
>> I'm guessing multiple video cards.
>
> Yeah. I mean, my video card has 2 outputs, but I don't recall seeing any
> with more than that.
>
>>> (I'm still trying to figure out why you'd want two in the first
>>> place...)
>>
>> Because you've never tried it, or you don't seriously work with
>> computers.
>
> Well, I guess I only spend 90% of my day job and 70% of my spare time
> sat in front of a computer.
From the sound of your day job, you don't work seriously with computers
there. At least, not programming. I don't know if a sys admin type gets much
out of multiple monitors, but I wouldn't be surprised, given that most sys
admin types I know have 300+ windows open at any given time, without
exageration.
>> Does your desk have room for more than just a keyboard and mouse? What
>> else do you put on it?
>
> So... you put a second monitor there just to fill up the otherwise
> unused space?
No. Do you set reference books or note pads on your desk just to keep it
from looking tidy?
>>> I still find it scary that people have written C programs that take
>>> longer than 0.003 seconds to compile. How huge would they have to be?
>>
>> Last one I worked on took about 45 minutes to compile, and it included
>> tons of already-compiled stuff for which we didn't have the source.
>
> OOC, how many million lines was it?
Never counted. I was lucky if I could track down which version of any given
file was compiling, let alone *all* of them.
>> I'm a little surprised they don't seem to use the tools they sell to
>> others.
>
> Isn't this the same company who's main web server was running Apache
> under Linux, and not IIS?
I don't know that it was ever the *main* web server.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2011 5:02 AM, scott wrote:
>> The idea of a computer having 8GB of RAM is strange and foreign to me.
>> Much less a mere desktop PC.
>
> I guess that's because you've never worked anywhere where they upgrade
> the hardware every 2 years :-)
>
> BTW 8GB of RAM is about the same price as filling up your car with petrol!
Course... even scarier is how much ram you *could* theoretically put on
them, if not for the fact that pretty much all consumer grade mother
boards are limited to, at most, 4 RAM slots. I think it was something
like.. 128GB or something.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 08:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> From the sound of your day job, you don't work seriously with computers
> there. At least, not programming. I don't know if a sys admin type gets
> much out of multiple monitors, but I wouldn't be surprised, given that
> most sys admin types I know have 300+ windows open at any given time,
> without exageration.
My mind is blown.
1. What possible use would having 300 windows open actually be?
2. The human mind can't focus on that many pieces of information at
once, so how can this possibly be useful?
3. Wouldn't the computer slow to a crawl as a result? (Well, I guess it
depends *what* the windows are...)
>> So... you put a second monitor there just to fill up the otherwise
>> unused space?
>
> No. Do you set reference books or note pads on your desk just to keep it
> from looking tidy?
No? But then, I guess if you removed the notepad, it would still look
fairly untidy due to the random stacks of CDs, product boxes, spare CD
cases, assorted pieces of hardware, and other stuff that my desk has on
it...
>> Isn't this the same company who's main web server was running Apache
>> under Linux, and not IIS?
>
> I don't know that it was ever the *main* web server.
I don't have a reliable source to check with.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Course... even scarier is how much ram you *could* theoretically put on
> them, if not for the fact that pretty much all consumer grade mother
> boards are limited to, at most, 4 RAM slots. I think it was something
> like.. 128GB or something.
Now, with *that* much RAM, you could pretty much keep your entire OS
partition in RAM. You wouldn't even need secondary storage. I mean, you
know, unless you wanted to be able to reboot ever again...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now, with *that* much RAM, you could pretty much keep your entire OS
> partition in RAM.
No, generally, you just keep your entire database in RAM. How do you think
these "web scale" nosql databases get decent efficiency?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 1. What possible use would having 300 windows open actually be?
Usually a shell or two on each machine in the company, a monitor widget or
two for each (load, memory, disk usage, etc), pages of documentation, and
(in this particular case) at least a couple of porn windows. (He got yelled
at several times until he turned his desk to face the door. Most amusing.)
> 2. The human mind can't focus on that many pieces of information at
> once, so how can this possibly be useful?
It's so he doesn't have to log in.
> 3. Wouldn't the computer slow to a crawl as a result? (Well, I guess it
> depends *what* the windows are...)
No.
> No? But then, I guess if you removed the notepad, it would still look
> fairly untidy due to the random stacks of CDs, product boxes, spare CD
> cases, assorted pieces of hardware, and other stuff that my desk has on
> it...
Well, there you go. I have assorted widgets, random web pages, and various
communications devices on my second monitor. When I'm coding, I often have
the code in front of me and the online docs to the right of me.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, I guess I only spend 90% of my day job and 70% of my spare time
> sat in front of a computer.
I couldn't live without two monitors at work. The left screen is for
Outlook (which is usually the source of all work I have to do and where
the work goes after I'm done), the right screen is for whatever I'm
currently working on (3D CAD, powerpoint, excel etc).
> So... you put a second monitor there just to fill up the otherwise
> unused space? That seems like a pretty weak justification for something
> so expensive.
The monitors are probably the cheapest part, after the PC box itself,
the laptop, the phone and the furniture it's all sitting on, it really
isn't a cost worth worrying about in comparison with everything else.
Even if it only saves you a couple of minutes each day it's worth it.
> My mind is blown.
>
> 1. What possible use would having 300 windows open actually be?
>
> 2. The human mind can't focus on that many pieces of information at once, so how can
this possibly be useful?
>
> 3. Wouldn't the computer slow to a crawl as a result? (Well, I guess it depends
*what* the windows are...)
Not 300, but 50 games of online Poker at once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHrGjRO7MFQ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 05:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> but he didn't bother to change the default combination. (??!)
>
> No, he cracked the safe. Safes don't have default combinations, unless
> they're digital, which they weren't 60 years ago.
There *was* a story about Feynman cracking combinations. But there was
also a big safe that he couldn't crack, and when the guy came to drill
it, he wanted to see how it was done. The guy told him he just used the
default combination, because it hadn't been changed.
(I can't be bothered to look up the page numbers right now...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/02/2011 11:36 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Now, with *that* much RAM, you could pretty much keep your entire OS
>> partition in RAM.
>
> No, generally, you just keep your entire database in RAM. How do you
> think these "web scale" nosql databases get decent efficiency?
They don't?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 08:39 AM, scott wrote:
> I couldn't live without two monitors at work. The left screen is for
> Outlook (which is usually the source of all work I have to do and where
> the work goes after I'm done), the right screen is for whatever I'm
> currently working on (3D CAD, powerpoint, excel etc).
Wouldn't it be simpler and easier to just buy one larger monitor?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
