 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escribió:
> Wait - Wine attempts to perform emulation at the API level?
Yes, that's the ONLY thing it does. Well, and some tweaking for the PE
executable format, but not much more.
> Damn, that's even harder than hardware emulation! o_O [At least the
> hardware is mostly documented somewhere...]
Correct, it doesn't emulate hardware. It's not an emulator. WINE = Wine
Is Not an Emulator.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> [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
AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+?
Have you *seen* the heat sink??
It's bigger than the damn CPU - by at least an order of magnitude!
I'm presuming the whole thing is encased in solid metal to promote heat
dissapation or something...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New escribió:
>> Tht was an answer, not a question. :-)
>>
>
> You were talking about the slow-ass GMail web interface?
No, I was talking about how many people use supercomputers to read email.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
...which, conveniently, isn't defined in the standard document.
IIRC, this is why the standard was rejected until M$ redraft it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escribió:
>>> 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
http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030103
Last panel.
Or, yeah, illegal downloads. (Those are overlapping categories anyway.)
Or how about PNGs from every single POV-Ray animation you do, including
test renders? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's using a supercomputer - or more accurately, an entire cluster of
> perfectly ordinary computers - to *store* your email, not read it.
Given that computers can't read (as such), I think you're reading too
much into "read your email". Certainly without the google computer
cluster, you wouldn't be using gmail to read your email. That the email
text actually has to be delivered to your screen is kind of irrelevant,
IMO. :-)
> I still contend that AmigaDOS was easier than any version of Windoze
> I've ever touched. But I'm minority like that...
I agree. A shame it didn't keep up with the times.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wait - Wine attempts to perform emulation at the API level?
>
> Yes, that's the ONLY thing it does. Well, and some tweaking for the PE
> executable format, but not much more.
I am seriously surprised that something like CSS - which is a little
unstable with a *real* copy of Windoze - could be coaxed to actually
work properly using any kind of emulation technology. I mean, just think
of the level of low-level performance-squeezing trickery that goes into
a headline games title like that... it's staggering! o_O
> Correct, it doesn't emulate hardware. It's not an emulator. WINE = Wine
> Is Not an Emulator.
Did I ever mention that I really *hate* recursive acronyms?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
Anything having to do with processing media, yes. Certainly any company
can easily fill a terabyte without too much effort.
I mean, come on, you can go down to the corner store and by a 750G disk
drive for ... well, way cheap, here.
> 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.)
Again, for businesses, it's not an issue.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I still contend that AmigaDOS was easier than any version of Windoze
>> I've ever touched. But I'm minority like that...
>
> I agree. A shame it didn't keep up with the times.
It would *hardly* be the first time a superior technology has vanished
for reasons unrelated to technology... sadly... :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> That's using a supercomputer - or more accurately, an entire cluster
>> of perfectly ordinary computers - to *store* your email, not read it.
>
> Given that computers can't read (as such), I think you're reading too
> much into "read your email". Certainly without the google computer
> cluster, you wouldn't be using gmail to read your email. That the email
> text actually has to be delivered to your screen is kind of irrelevant,
> IMO. :-)
>
>> I still contend that AmigaDOS was easier than any version of Windoze
>> I've ever touched. But I'm minority like that...
>
> I agree.
me too
> A shame it didn't keep up with the times.
>
yes
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>
> http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030103
> Last panel.
170 GB of porn?? o_O
But... porn files are always compressed to a mess of pink pixelly bits
so it downloads faster... to actually fill *one* GB of space wit- uh,
never mind...
> Or, yeah, illegal downloads. (Those are overlapping categories anyway.)
Hmm. Indeed.
> Or how about PNGs from every single POV-Ray animation you do, including
> test renders? :)
Well, given that a typical PNG file is between 1 KB and 500 KB,
that's... A LOT OF FREAKIN' FRAMES!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:47f141b7@news.povray.org...
> >> 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
My home server has close on 500GB of drives and is over half full.
Assorted downloads, pdfs, Virtual PC images, ripped CDs (mine), Ripped DVDs
(mine), backups of the other machines
It adds up
> 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.
Most of the higher end ones support 8GB
> Dual-core is becomming common, but I don't think I've met anybody yet
> who can afford quad-core.
Hi Andrew. Nice to meet you.....
Or did you mean meet in person?
The quad core 2.4GHz is around R2000, the quad 2.66 is R4500. (The dual core
3.0 is R1800, Dual core 3.16 is R2500)
I'll leave you do do the curency conversions if you like (current exchange
rate - R16.1 = 1 pound)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>
> Anything having to do with processing media, yes. Certainly any company
> can easily fill a terabyte without too much effort.
Like... what? Storing the entire season of Friends in uncompressed RGB
format? Even that surely wouldn't come close...!
> I mean, come on, you can go down to the corner store and by a 750G disk
> drive for ... well, way cheap, here.
£109.99. It was on special offer. I bought one 3 days ago.
I didn't actually need one that big. 160 GB would have been fine. I just
need slightly more space for my C: partition. I foolishly tried to
install Komplete 5, which takes up 36 GB of space... [And people
complain that M$ produces large products!]
>> 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.)
>
> Again, for businesses, it's not an issue.
Oh, no, for a business it wouldn't be. I was thinking more for the
casual comsumer.
I guess "high-end" and related terms are necessarily somewhat
subjective. If you want, you can buy yourself a Sun system with 32
UltraSPARCs in it or something insane like that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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.
Oh come on. I'm poking at you. :-) C++ is just generally easy to poke
at. Any sufficiently crufty specification is going to have
under-specified parts to it.
Making something too simple can be just as annoying. My latest annoyance
at Erlang:
To receive a message, you write
receive guard1 -> value1; guard2 -> value2; ... end.
That means when you get a message, it matches against each guard in turn
until it finds one that matches. If it finds it, it calculates the
associated value and consumes the message. If there's no match, it
leaves it in the queue and idles until another message comes along.
Because of this, each [guard] has to not have any side-effects. In
practice, this means you can only call certain built-in functions the
compiler knows have no side effects (is_integer(), list_length(), test
for equality, etc).
Sadly, the "if" statement (and "case" statement, slightly different)
also use guards.
if guard -> value; guard -> value; ... ; true -> value end
(the last if you want to guarantee a match, like "else").
The sad part is that it's the same guard, hence no side-effects, hence
no user-defined functions. If you have three methods that might match,
increasingly more expensive to calculate, and you want to know which it
was, you can't write
if my_cheapmatch(X) -> cheap;
my_medium(X) -> medium;
my_expensive(X)->expensive;
true -> nope
end
You have to write
C = my_cheapmatch(X),
if X -> cheap;
true -> M = my_medium(X),
if M -> medium;
true -> E = my_expensive(X),
if E -> expensive;
true -> nope
end
end
end
Kind of deeply nested for such a simple concept, and afaict there's no
real reason to prohibit side-effects in the if statement since (unlike
receive) it doesn't get retried in any sense.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>
> My home server has close on 500GB of drives and is over half full.
> Assorted downloads, pdfs, Virtual PC images, ripped CDs (mine), Ripped DVDs
> (mine), backups of the other machines
> It adds up
Wait, back up... virtual PC images?
OK, that'll do it by itself. The default install of Windoze XP eats well
over 1 GB of space. Add Office for an additional 1 GB of space gone. It
wouldn't take very many PC images to fill even the most cavernous disk...
BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
>> 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.
>
> Most of the higher end ones support 8GB
When I bought mine, it *was* high-end. Brand new chipset, supporting the
new socket-939 standard for the then-new Athlon64 series, allowing you
to break into this new-fangled "64-bit computing" thingy that everybody
was so excited about.
Jesus, my PC is old. o_O
>> Dual-core is becomming common, but I don't think I've met anybody yet
>> who can afford quad-core.
>
> Hi Andrew. Nice to meet you.....
> Or did you mean meet in person?
That can be arranged. ;-) Or... I like to delude myself that it could
be. I think that would be kinda neat anyway...
> The quad core 2.4GHz is around R2000, the quad 2.66 is R4500. (The dual core
> 3.0 is R1800, Dual core 3.16 is R2500)
> I'll leave you do do the curency conversions if you like (current exchange
> rate - R16.1 = 1 pound)
Doesn't mean you can buy it for that over here. E.g., Adobe Acrobat
Standard costs $400 US or £400. (Guess which price we bought?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 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...
>>
>> 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
>
Storing patient ECG data.
And one of my former PhD students has also some use for it (can't
remember if I already mentioned that, so excuse me if it is old news)
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2008/january/udm.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>>
> Storing patient ECG data.
Yeah, that'll do it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
Video editing. It's not even enough for serious work on that field.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It would *hardly* be the first time a superior technology has vanished
> for reasons unrelated to technology... sadly... :-(
I think the lack of ability to do multiuser work and the lack of ability
to get beyond TV resolution were at least as deadly as Commodore marketing.
These improvements were added after it was too late.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escribió:
>> Or how about PNGs from every single POV-Ray animation you do,
>> including test renders? :)
>
> Well, given that a typical PNG file is between 1 KB and 500 KB,
> that's... A LOT OF FREAKIN' FRAMES!!
You never did big renders, with frames +1MB?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
>
> Video editing. It's not even enough for serious work on that field.
Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly - video data typically eats a
few GB per minute. So why do you need 1,000 GB? That's, like, several
*hours* of video data. You'd have to be producing a feature film or
something to need more, surely?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Like... what? Storing the entire season of Friends in uncompressed RGB
> format? Even that surely wouldn't come close...!
You would be surprised. Say you have (oh, I don't know) a program that
listens to 70 radio stations in a city, and you want to save a week
worth of audio for some reason. Calculate out what 70 channels of
CD-quality uncompressed audio comes to.
> Oh, no, for a business it wouldn't be. I was thinking more for the
> casual comsumer.
Right.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escribió:
> BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
Sigh.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f14649$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
> >
> > My home server has close on 500GB of drives and is over half full.
> > Assorted downloads, pdfs, Virtual PC images, ripped CDs (mine), Ripped
DVDs
> > (mine), backups of the other machines
> > It adds up
>
> Wait, back up... virtual PC images?
Yup. Virtual PC (or virtual server). Both free downloads (From MS). Allows
you to install an OS and run a virtual machine as an application.
I use them for Beta software mostly. Also have a couple of software that
wouldn't play nice on the same machine, or that I don't trust fully.
The 'harddrives' of these are just files.
Very much like VMWare, just free
> OK, that'll do it by itself. The default install of Windoze XP eats well
> over 1 GB of space. Add Office for an additional 1 GB of space gone. It
> wouldn't take very many PC images to fill even the most cavernous disk...
The base Server OS image is about 3 GB. My SQL 2008 beta is about 1 GB.
Biztalk's a lot bigger.
They all base off the same server image, so it's not so bad.
> BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
Um, sure. You know those .iso files you see from time to time....
> > The quad core 2.4GHz is around R2000, the quad 2.66 is R4500. (The dual
core
> > 3.0 is R1800, Dual core 3.16 is R2500)
> > I'll leave you do do the curency conversions if you like (current
exchange
> > rate - R16.1 = 1 pound)
>
> Doesn't mean you can buy it for that over here.
Probably cheaper. Hardware's notoriously expensive here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It would *hardly* be the first time a superior technology has vanished
>> for reasons unrelated to technology... sadly... :-(
>
> I think the lack of ability to do multiuser work and the lack of ability
> to get beyond TV resolution were at least as deadly as Commodore marketing.
>
> These improvements were added after it was too late.
The Amiga has always been able to work at resolutions other than TV.
That's just the default settings.
Commodore had a new chipset in development that was wildly ahead of its
time - true 24-bit graphics, in an era when the PCs were just beginning
to experiment with more than 16-colour video. Realtime blitting of
24-bit graphics - apparently they had running silicon. Beaffed up sound
capabilities too. But, for whatever reason, the project was shelved.
There then followed a series of phantom products that never actually
made it to marked, until eventually CBM just ran out of cash and shut
down. Several people bought the technology, continued to ship it, but
didn't "do" anything with it, until eventually the PC marked was so far
ahead of anything the aging Amiga could offer that it was pretty much
game over.
I've yet to see any group of people as fanatical about a technology as
the Amiga users though. Everybody seemed to utterly convinced the Amiga
would fight back and retake the world, any day now... it just never
came. Interesting social dynamic there...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escribió:
>>> [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
>
> AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+?
I have one o' those :)
> Have you *seen* the heat sink??
I still haven't opened my computer case since I got it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Or how about PNGs from every single POV-Ray animation you do,
>>> including test renders? :)
>>
>> Well, given that a typical PNG file is between 1 KB and 500 KB,
>> that's... A LOT OF FREAKIN' FRAMES!!
>
> You never did big renders, with frames +1MB?
If I'm rendering something in an animation, it's to put it on a DVD.
DVDs only support extremely low spatial resolutions. (Even with the new
HD technologies which will one day become commonly available, resolution
is still extremely low.) Small images don't take up much space.
Now, large stills for Zazzle can get pretty big...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
>
> Um, sure. You know those .iso files you see from time to time....
OK, I rephrase: Can you actually *do* something useful with this data
once you have it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 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
>
> AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+?
That, too.
> Have you *seen* the heat sink??
He was talking about the little metal pad on the top of the CPU. The
one, that connects the CPU to the heat sink.
> It's bigger than the damn CPU - by at least an order of magnitude!
Yes. OTOH, my C2D T5600's heat sink is 'bout same size as the CPU
itself. It's connected to 'bout same-sized radiator with heat pipes.
Then again, it's installed in a laptop...
> I'm presuming the whole thing is encased in solid metal to promote heat
> dissapation or something...
The heat sink usually is one part of solid metal. But it's still is it's
own part and not part of the CPU.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escribió:
> OK, I rephrase: Can you actually *do* something useful with this data
> once you have it?
Yes, like burning it to another disc... Additionally, the DRM in DVD
movies has been broken since 1999.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm presuming the whole thing is encased in solid metal to promote
>> heat dissapation or something...
>
> The heat sink usually is one part of solid metal. But it's still is it's
> own part and not part of the CPU.
No, I meant I think the CPU die is encased in solid metal to promote
heat transfer from it to the heat sink.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
>>
>> Um, sure. You know those .iso files you see from time to time....
>
> OK, I rephrase: Can you actually *do* something useful with this data
> once you have it?
Like creating MP3 from a music DVD?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f1497f$1@news.povray.org...
> >> BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
> >
> > Um, sure. You know those .iso files you see from time to time....
>
> OK, I rephrase: Can you actually *do* something useful with this data
> once you have it?
Mount it as a virtual dvd and treat it as if it was a disk. (Daemon tools,
etc)
Most DVD writing software will let you take an iso and burn to a DVD so that
the burnt disk looks like the original.
I wouldn't exactly be storing ripped DVDs if I couldn't do anything with
them...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Wait, back up... virtual PC images?
Yes. Next question?
Oh, did anyone yet mention the rootshares for machines that boot from
the network (who would want a HD to spin around near sleeping facilities
(=the bed console) or in a HTPC?)?
> BTW... it's possible to rip DVDs??
Yes. dd if=/dev/dvd of=dvd.img
> Jesus, my PC is old. o_O
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-98377375624850470
Here's the lyrics:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weirdalyankovic/itsallaboutthepentiums.html
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly - video data typically eats a
> few GB per minute. So why do you need 1,000 GB? That's, like, several
> *hours* of video data. You'd have to be producing a feature film or
> something to need more, surely?
First of all, you'll have easily more than twice the data you'll
actually need. While shooting video you'll get *a lot* of misshoots.
Secondly, you'll need some scratch space. So the 1000GB can be divided
by 3 or 4 in the first place - 250 or 333GB ain't so much anymore...
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Damn - what on earth could you possibly use 1 TB of disk for?? o_O
> >
> > Video editing. It's not even enough for serious work on that field.
> Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly - video data typically eats a
> few GB per minute. So why do you need 1,000 GB? That's, like, several
> *hours* of video data. You'd have to be producing a feature film or
> something to need more, surely?
Do you remember our talk about layers in image editing software?
Video editing software don't have layers per se, but tracks, which
is almost the same thing.
Usually the video editing process consists in having hundreds, if not
even thousands of video clips from which you create the whole video.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, I rephrase: Can you actually *do* something useful with this data
>> once you have it?
>
> Mount it as a virtual dvd and treat it as if it was a disk. (Daemon tools,
> etc)
Oh... I wouldn't have expected that to work due to copy protection.
> Most DVD writing software will let you take an iso and burn to a DVD so that
> the burnt disk looks like the original.
Isn't the DVD copy protection designed expressedly for the purpose of
completely preventing this from ever happening?
> I wouldn't exactly be storing ripped DVDs if I couldn't do anything with
> them...
Well, hence my surprise... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Do you remember our talk about layers in image editing software?
>
> Video editing software don't have layers per se, but tracks, which
> is almost the same thing.
>
> Usually the video editing process consists in having hundreds, if not
> even thousands of video clips from which you create the whole video.
GAH! o_O
No wonder all the video I create looks rubbish...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escribió:
> Oh... I wouldn't have expected that to work due to copy protection.
Few discs have real copy protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video#Restrictions
"CSS does not make it more difficult to copy the digital content, nor
possible to distinguish between legal and illegal copies of a work, but
it does restrict the playback software that may be used."
"After DeCSS ripping software became available, companies developed
techniques to introduce errors in DVD-Video discs that don't normally
affect playback and navigation of a disc, but can cause problems in
software that attempts to copy the entire disc."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> No, I meant I think the CPU die is encased in solid metal to promote
> heat transfer from it to the heat sink.
Ah, yes. Would sound pretty reasonable.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47f14e4f$1@news.povray.org...
> >> OK, I rephrase: Can you actually *do* something useful with this data
> >> once you have it?
> >
> > Mount it as a virtual dvd and treat it as if it was a disk. (Daemon
tools,
> > etc)
>
> Oh... I wouldn't have expected that to work due to copy protection.
What I'm generally ripping doesn't have copy protection.
SQL Server DVDs
Conference proceedings
Game demo disks (from magazines)
etc
I never said I was ripping DVD video (which is just as possible, but
slightly more difficult and doesn't result in an iso file)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:28:43 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
<initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>
>I never said I was ripping DVD video (which is just as possible, but
>slightly more difficult and doesn't result in an iso file)
>
It can, if you are that way inclined :)
Just about any illegal activity can be done, if you are that way
inclined.
Not that I am but I had a hard milk round :) and I know a few dubious
people.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The Amiga has always been able to work at resolutions other than TV.
> That's just the default settings.
Sorry. I never saw the A1000 plugged into any monitor more resolute than
a television. Maybe in theory, yes, but not something you could buy off
the shelf.
(IIRC, not even in theory, tho. :-)
> I've yet to see any group of people as fanatical about a technology as
> the Amiga users though.
It was very awesome technology. I still have all the textbooks. I still
think it's a great way to build an OS. It's just hard to do it
multi-user. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
