 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Tht was an answer, not a question. :-)
>
You were talking about the slow-ass GMail web interface?
That's why I use IMAP. (and NNTP to get in here)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> 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?" ;-)
It's incredible how you find ways to bash C++ in every possible context.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Invisible wrote:
>>>> How many people use a supercomputer to read their email? ;-)
>>>
>>> Anyone using gmail? :-)
>>
>> I am, but over IMAP.
>
> That was an answer, not a question. :-)
>
Yes, the question mark was a dead giveaway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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...
Pff, I only have a 512MB memory graphics card, 200 GB harddrive is easy
as possible, and even little timmy down the street has 2GB of ram. ;)
It's actually (by todays standards) a very moderate system. Bottom of
midrange.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> [What's it made of? Lead??]
Silicon, mostly. a few threads of gold, maybe a ceramic outer case, with
a very small possibility of a heat-conducting metal pad. :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> It's a direct dump of the binary format internal structure into XML.
> When you see a tag called <useWord97LineBreaks>, what should your
> implementation do?
I would assume you would need to know what the behavior difference in a
Word97 linebreak versus a normal line break.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> *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)
Wait - Wine attempts to perform emulation at the API level?
Damn, that's even harder than hardware emulation! o_O [At least the
hardware is mostly documented somewhere...]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> How many people use a supercomputer to read their email? ;-)
>
> Anyone using gmail? :-)
No - what is it?
[NO! I'M KIDDING THIS TIME!!]
That's using a supercomputer - or more accurately, an entire cluster of
perfectly ordinary computers - to *store* your email, not read it.
> 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.
Pretty mental, eh?
Wanna speculate how many FLOPS you can get out of a Commodore 64? Since
it has a 1 MHz clock and typically takes around 4 clock cycles per
instruction, and all float processing has to be done in software, I'm
thinking were somewhere in the kFLOPS range?
What does, say, an Intel Xeon 3.66 GHz generate? How about a
top-of-the-line nVidia GeForce GPU? (I know it's MFLOPS, but I couldn't
tell you how many exactly...)
> 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. :-)
I still contend that AmigaDOS was easier than any version of Windoze
I've ever touched. But I'm minority like that...
[Perhaps somebody will claim Mac OS X is the way to go?]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
I only know 1 person who has nearly that much space - and he uses it for
illegal media downloads. (Not something I do, obviously.)
My current motherboard doesn't even *support* more than 4 GB of RAM.
Although I guess RAM is much cheaper now than it used to be.
Dual-core is becomming common, but I don't think I've met anybody yet
who can afford quad-core. (Since that almost necessarily requires you to
buy Intel, who are still quite expensive.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's incredible how you find ways to bash C++ in every possible context.
The human mind is a truly increadible thing. Maybe one day we'll figure
out how it works...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
