 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> Damn. In my universe, anything that says Core 2 Duo on it is likely to
>> cost several hundred pounds by itself... :-(
>
> You mean like in weight?
Well, I've never held an Intel CPU before, but the AMD Athlon X2 I had
the other week sure was damn heavy for such a tiny little thing...
[What's it made of? Lead??]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wine AppDB lists "Counter-Strike: Source Retail / Steam" in the top-10
>> platinum list ("Applications which install and run flawlessly on an
>> out-of-the-box Wine installation").
>
> *one raised eyebrow*
>
> You're telling me a game making intense use of 3D hardware [not to
> mention CPU-intensive physics simulations] will actually work under
> software emulation?
>
Software emulation???
Wine will convert the DirectX calls into OpenGL calls. (well, not
"convert"; it just has a DirectX "library" where all functions just call
OpenGL functions)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:47f0f7bb$1@news.povray.org...
>
> And yet, I run Vista (Home Premium, even!) on a rather moderate machine.
> 2.6 P4, 200GB harddrive, and 2.5G ram. It runs rather smoothly,
> actually. I didn't notice any considerable performance drop from WinXP
> to Vista.
Vista Ultimate here on a laptop. Slightly higher spec than yours, but then I
run virtual PC and server apps on it, so it has to be. It plays games pretty
well too.
The only glitch I've had so far is when StarForce copy protection tried to
install itself. One of the 3 drivers isn't signed, so Vista refused to
install it. Would have been fine if StarForce had undone the installation
properly. As it was, I was left with 2 of the 3 drivers installed and got
dumped to the recovery console the next time the laptop booted. Only took
about 5 min to fix, once I found what the problem was.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Generally, reverse engineering mechanical hardware is easier than
> reverse engineering M$ software
You don't really have to reverse engineer it. You print it out on paper
and look at it.
> The particular case that I used is a law firm. It's not just money, it's
> people's lives and livelihoods.
Fair enough.
> Sorry. Not a valid argument. You've confused physical format with coded
> format.
They're all coded, so I'm not sure what your point is. Formats change,
and if you want continued access to your data, you need to periodically
go through the pain of upgrading formats. This is true of every format.
Some formats last longer than data tends to be worth, so you really only
see that pain when you're (say) an archeologist, but it's always there.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f0f8da@news.povray.org...
> > And yet, I run Vista (Home Premium, even!) on a rather moderate machine.
> > 2.6 P4, 200GB harddrive, and 2.5G ram. It runs rather smoothly,
> > actually. I didn't notice any considerable performance drop from WinXP
> > to Vista.
>
> In which universe is a machine with a 200 GB HD and more than 1 GB of
> RAM considered "moderate"? That sounds pretty high-end to me...
My 3+ year old desktop is slightly higher spec'ed than that.
High end today is quad core processor, 4 GB+ memory and 1/2 TB disk space.
I'm currently speccing a new desktop.
Quad core 2.4
4 GB memory
400GB HDD
8800 GT graphics card
Total price - R9500 (+-)
That's just under 600 pounds at current exchange rate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> How many people use a supercomputer to read their email? ;-)
Anyone using gmail? :-)
> [Depending on your definition of "supercomputer". Compared to the
> Commodore 64 that I started out with, the dual-core multi-GHz thing I
> have at home probably *seems* like a damn supercomputer!]
I was just thinking the other day, what kinds of computers are we
running that not that long ago, the US considered a 486 a
"supercomputer" enough to restrict its export to countries that might
use it to do nuclear bomb simulations. And now there's probably an order
of magnitude more power in the graphics chip of a game console than what
used to be a supercomputer 15 years ago.
> The best software for running a supercomputer is *not* necessarily the
> best software for running a desktop. I'm not saying Linux isn't good,
> I'm saying this particular snippet of logic is flawed.
Yeah, Linux is definitely superior if what you're doing is dicking
around with the OS. Like Amazon's ECC or something - can't even imagine
that being supported via Windows.
Not that Windows is great either. They just have a user base that
expects computers to be easy to use, and a financial need to keep those
users happy. Plus, lots of Linux weenies don't know Windows'
capabilities and complain it doesn't work when it does. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's because the format is closed, proprietary
> and owned by MS.
Not any more. :-)
In any case, it's again a business decision. Is it more expensive to
export everything from MS Word into some other software, or is it more
expensive to pay MS their fees?
Pure business.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> How about deliberately defining it in such a way that only Word itself
> can really "understand" what its content means?
This is what happens when you have support for dozens of versions of a
program in your file format. Not unlike C++. "How about defining a
source input format that can't be checked for syntactic correctness
without a potentially infinite storage space?" ;-)
> XML is no magic bullet for instant portability...
It will let you get enough of your data out that you can then import it
into another format.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Invisible wrote:
>> How many people use a supercomputer to read their email? ;-)
>
> Anyone using gmail? :-)
I am, but over IMAP.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> How many people use a supercomputer to read their email? ;-)
>>
>> Anyone using gmail? :-)
>
> I am, but over IMAP.
Tht was an answer, not a question. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
