 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
