 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
- It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now it's
something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
- nVidia's latest and greatest is the GeForce 200 series. The 260 is
expensive, but not extortionate. The 280 is several times the price.
However, every benchmark I've seen shows the 280 as about 20% at best.
Given that it's far more than 20% more expensive, that doesn't seem like
great value for money. I'm considering buying a 260. (My GeForce 7900GT
is slowly dying...)
- It seems that AMD's CPU designs still trail Intel by a wide margin in
terms of performance. I think AMD might give you more performance for
your money, but if you want the fastest CPU it's not going to be an AMD
product. And Intel's offerings mostly seem to be a reasonable price.
(Obviously anything that says "Extreme" on it is 400% more expensive but
only about 6% faster.)
- For ages every Intel CPU going has used the same socket. It seems
there's a new one just come out, and currently motherboards for it are
absurdly expensive. (Like, the motherboard costs more than the CPU!) I
think I might wait for the prices to return to sanity - as inevitably
they will - and then make a purchase. (Curiosly, the CPUs themselves
aren't *that* expensive, considering they're brand new.)
- I've been looking at watercooling. Just to find out how expensive it
is. It seems there are kits selling for about £50, but if you buy all
the components individually it could easily cost £100 or more. (The
waterblocks seem to be the expensive part - especially for GPUs.)
- On a similar theme... Most people spend about £6 on a PSU. It's
amazing what you get if you spend a tiny bit more (e.g., £20). What's
even more amazing is that you can spend *hundreds* of pounds on
31337-gamer PSUs if you wish.
- Likewise, cases start at £10 or even less, and go up to several
hundred pounds if you want something ridiculously over-styled. Of
course, all the expensive cases are aluminium rather than steel. (I was
recently very surprised to learn that hyper-expensive aluminium is
actually *less* thermally conductive than plain ordinary copper. So...
why don't they just make cases out of copper??)
Every time I turn out to a clan meeting, everybody brings along their
uber-gaming rig. You know the kind of thing - insanely over-styled
casing with big transparent windows, fans that light up, internal case
lighting, elaborate watercooling systems with polished chrome fans,
multiple graphics cards the size of a car, high-capacity HDs in
front-loading hot-swap drive bays, etc etc. And then there's my PC...
which is just a PC.
I could almost go for the insane look... :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Every time I turn out to a clan meeting, everybody brings along their
> uber-gaming rig. You know the kind of thing - insanely over-styled
> casing with big transparent windows, fans that light up, internal case
> lighting, elaborate watercooling systems with polished chrome fans,
> multiple graphics cards the size of a car, high-capacity HDs in
> front-loading hot-swap drive bays, etc etc. And then there's my PC...
> which is just a PC.
Paint it black and put yellow racing stripes on it. Black paint is 10%
faster, and yellow racing stripes give it a 50% speed boost. You could
get another 20% buy cramming the case full of high-intensity blue LEDs.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Paint it black and put yellow racing stripes on it. Black paint is 10%
> faster, and yellow racing stripes give it a 50% speed boost.
LOL!
Hey, do you remember the old PCs that used to have a "turbo button" on
the front? Why the **** would you ever turn that off?! o_O
> You could
> get another 20% buy cramming the case full of high-intensity blue LEDs.
No need; the case fans already have two blue LEDs that light up the room
sufficiently for photopic vision. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> Paint it black and put yellow racing stripes on it. Black paint is 10%
>> faster, and yellow racing stripes give it a 50% speed boost.
>
> LOL!
>
> Hey, do you remember the old PCs that used to have a "turbo button" on
> the front? Why the **** would you ever turn that off?! o_O
>
Old Games. Programmers used to rely on the fact that the processor ran
at a brisk 4mhz, 12+mhz caused the game to run too fast to be playable.
>> You could get another 20% buy cramming the case full of high-intensity
>> blue LEDs.
>
> No need; the case fans already have two blue LEDs that light up the room
> sufficiently for photopic vision. :-P
No, you must cram it full of LEDs! Not only does it need to be bright to
get the speed gain, but it has to be blindingly bright. Because
Blindingly bright = Blindingly fast, you see.
for an extra 15% add a few fans with a flashing multi-color light
show. You know the kind ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hey, do you remember the old PCs that used to have a "turbo button" on
>> the front? Why the **** would you ever turn that off?! o_O
>
> Old Games. Programmers used to rely on the fact that the processor ran
> at a brisk 4mhz, 12+mhz caused the game to run too fast to be playable.
WTF? Why would they - oh, wait... CSS malfunctions if you play it on a
dual-core CPU. (Something to do with directly accessing the CPU's
realtime timer - which, obviously, is different on each core!)
> No, you must cram it full of LEDs! Not only does it need to be bright to
> get the speed gain, but it has to be blindingly bright. Because
> Blindingly bright = Blindingly fast, you see.
>
> for an extra 15% add a few fans with a flashing multi-color light
> show. You know the kind ...
But of course, for Ultimate Speed you must use ultraviolet, together
with components containing inks that will respond to it...
(Seriously, you can buy cooling fluid that costs extra because it
floureses under UV. WTF?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Hey, do you remember the old PCs that used to have a "turbo button"
>>> on the front? Why the **** would you ever turn that off?! o_O
>>
>> Old Games. Programmers used to rely on the fact that the processor ran
>> at a brisk 4mhz, 12+mhz caused the game to run too fast to be playable.
>
> WTF? Why would they - oh, wait... CSS malfunctions if you play it on a
> dual-core CPU. (Something to do with directly accessing the CPU's
> realtime timer - which, obviously, is different on each core!)
>
Well, way back in the dark ages, they didn't really expect the CPU clock
speed to change, so their timings were based on how fast the processor
executes instructions. Of course, when faster systems started coming
out, they had to change their timing strategy.
CSS failing on a dual-core is probably due more to race conditions, or
other synchronization issues.
>
> But of course, for Ultimate Speed you must use ultraviolet, together
> with components containing inks that will respond to it...
>
> (Seriously, you can buy cooling fluid that costs extra because it
> floureses under UV. WTF?)
You could use your computer to light up your 1960s vintage velvet posters
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> WTF? Why would they - oh, wait... CSS malfunctions if you play it on a
>> dual-core CPU. (Something to do with directly accessing the CPU's
>> realtime timer - which, obviously, is different on each core!)
>
> Well, way back in the dark ages, they didn't really expect the CPU clock
> speed to change, so their timings were based on how fast the processor
> executes instructions. Of course, when faster systems started coming
> out, they had to change their timing strategy.
Heh. Delay loops FTW! :-/
> CSS failing on a dual-core is probably due more to race conditions, or
> other synchronization issues.
Well, it doesn't actually "fail", it just runs irregularly. As in, you
get an even higher framerate than normal, but it looks visually jerky.
(Or it did. They've fixed it now.) You used to have to manually set the
processor affinity to fix it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Woo! I just found a Sun server that costs more than my house! :-D
(OTOH, it *does* have 64 quad-core SPARC-64 VII processors in it...)
Looks like it's bigger than my entire server rack too. Cute.
At the other end of the scale, it appears that Sun now sell ordinary
desktop systems capable of running normal desktop software. They look
pretty, and they're not *especially* expensive either. (Like, a few
hundred pounds for an Intel Core 2 Quad system.)
Also... Somebody pointed out a website where you can select and
configure your own PC. It's not a very *good* site (e.g., you can't see
the prices for individual components, only the final unit, you can't
select all that many options, many things aren't documented very much,
etc.) But it's strangely addictive trying out various combinations of
components.
Sometimes you just want to see how much stuff you can cram into the box
without going over budget. And other times you just have to select the
biggest, baddest mutha you can, just to see what the hell the price tag
comes out at.
In summary, it appears that for about £3,000 I could have a REALLY
FREAKING NICE PC. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Every time I turn out to a clan meeting, everybody brings along their
> uber-gaming rig. You know the kind of thing - insanely over-styled
> casing with big transparent windows, fans that light up, internal case
> lighting, elaborate watercooling systems with polished chrome fans,
> multiple graphics cards the size of a car, high-capacity HDs in
> front-loading hot-swap drive bays, etc etc.
I don't understand the appeal of churning out lots of money to turn a
hammer into a kitsch object.
But then again, computer to a layman is nothing but a gateway to games,
music and video -- with some office software used to spellcheck emails
to justify the price as opposed to a mere games console. Beautiful
keyboard, mouse, monitor and casing are far more important than whatever
is on the inside -- the computer itself...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> You could get another 20% buy cramming the case full of high-intensity
>> blue LEDs.
>
> No need; the case fans already have two blue LEDs that light up the room
> sufficiently for photopic vision. :-P
I thought the blue leds were for cooling. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> But then again, computer to a layman is nothing but a gateway to games,
> music and video -- with some office software used to spellcheck emails
> to justify the price as opposed to a mere games console. Beautiful
> keyboard, mouse, monitor and casing are far more important than whatever
> is on the inside -- the computer itself...
I miss the days of the nondescript beige box.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> But then again, computer to a layman is nothing but a gateway to
>> games, music and video -- with some office software used to spellcheck
>> emails to justify the price as opposed to a mere games console.
>> Beautiful keyboard, mouse, monitor and casing are far more important
>> than whatever is on the inside -- the computer itself...
Yeah, it does seem that way.
A bit like those people who buy a Vaxhaul Nova and then try to make it
look like a Ferrari.
> I miss the days of the nondescript beige box.
Well you needn't! Just work for your local council. I'm sure *they*
still have green-screen terminals aplenty! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4976f242$1@news.povray.org...
> why don't they just make cases out of copper??)
Too heavy and very soft.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:08:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> Old Games. Programmers used to rely on the fact that the processor ran
>> at a brisk 4mhz, 12+mhz caused the game to run too fast to be playable.
>
> WTF? Why would they - oh, wait... CSS malfunctions if you play it on a
> dual-core CPU. (Something to do with directly accessing the CPU's
> realtime timer - which, obviously, is different on each core!)
Yeah, something like that. When nobody needed more than 640K, part of
the "reason" was there was no need to write code that ran at a constant
speed regardless of the processor speed. Until you had "turbo" machines
with 8-12 MHz, running a game like Pole Position at 3-4x normal speed
made it difficult to play.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:28:28 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> WTF? Why would they - oh, wait... CSS malfunctions if you play it on a
>>> dual-core CPU. (Something to do with directly accessing the CPU's
>>> realtime timer - which, obviously, is different on each core!)
>>
>> Well, way back in the dark ages, they didn't really expect the CPU
>> clock speed to change, so their timings were based on how fast the
>> processor executes instructions. Of course, when faster systems started
>> coming out, they had to change their timing strategy.
>
> Heh. Delay loops FTW! :-/
There were TSRs written for MS-DOS that did just that for machines that
had faster processors but no turbo button. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:37:15 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> But then again, computer to a layman is nothing but a gateway to games,
>> music and video -- with some office software used to spellcheck emails
>> to justify the price as opposed to a mere games console. Beautiful
>> keyboard, mouse, monitor and casing are far more important than
>> whatever is on the inside -- the computer itself...
>
> I miss the days of the nondescript beige box.
I've got two like that here. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
> and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
> something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now it's
> something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
News today: an 8GB *RAM-based* solid-state drive:
http://tinyurl.com/8d64qv
Transfer rate 6GB/second, except SATA doesn't support that much! :D
(hmm that might be 6.4 giga *bits* per second and arstechnica got it wrong?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> And other times you just have to select the
> biggest, baddest mutha you can, just to see what the hell the price tag
> comes out at.
A friend tried that on apple.com and got a $10k quote.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A bit like those people who buy a Vaxhaul Nova and then try to make it
> look like a Ferrari.
The key word here is *look*. I prefer to get a car that looks like a
Vauxhall Nova and *goes* like a Ferrari :-) Well actually I'd prefer one
that looked and went like a Ferrari, but they're quite expensive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> A bit like those people who buy a Vaxhaul Nova and then try to make it
>> look like a Ferrari.
>
> The key word here is *look*. I prefer to get a car that looks like a
> Vauxhall Nova and *goes* like a Ferrari :-) Well actually I'd prefer
> one that looked and went like a Ferrari, but they're quite expensive.
You forgot the exhaust system! Gotta take out the carefully designed
exhaust and replace it with a baked bean tin so it *sounds* like it has
a powerful engine too! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You forgot the exhaust system! Gotta take out the carefully designed
> exhaust and replace it with a baked bean tin so it *sounds* like it has a
> powerful engine too! ;-)
but the original spec exhaust is made for low noise and efficiency innit, i
got it tuned for max power now and it gotta be loud for that hannit
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> You forgot the exhaust system! Gotta take out the carefully designed
>> exhaust and replace it with a baked bean tin so it *sounds* like it
>> has a powerful engine too! ;-)
>
> but the original spec exhaust is made for low noise and efficiency
> innit, i got it tuned for max power now and it gotta be loud for that
> hannit
Yes! Because we all know, making your car sound like a 2-stroke
motorbike gives it the power-to-weight ratio of a 2-stroke motorbike! ;-)
Heh, reminds me of one of our local shops. We went in there to buy a
replacement battery. While they do sell those, most of their range is...
well let me put it this way. They sell allow wheels. Bucket seats. They
had a "rally" stereo system on display. And they also sell panels of
LEDs that flash. (?!) They don't do anything, they just look high-tech.
That store went bankrupt a few months ago...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> but the original spec exhaust is made for low noise and efficiency
> innit, i got it tuned for max power now and it gotta be loud for that
> hannit
>
It's crude, but I call them "Fart pipes"
Though a decent tuned exhaust does sound nice ...
But sticking a tailpipe with the diameter of a coffee can on your car
does nothing, but make your car sound like rolling flatulence.
And, someone once said if your car is loud, you're not getting the most
performance.
And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson motorcycles.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> And, someone once said if your car is loud, you're not getting the most
> performance.
>
> And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson motorcycles.
I'm still puzzled about the Race of Champions. They raced several
designs of car which seemed to be using *external combustion* to propell
themselves, rather than the more traditional *internal combustion*. (As
evidenced by the huge flashes and bangs as they raced round the track.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm still puzzled about the Race of Champions. They raced several designs
> of car which seemed to be using *external combustion* to propell
> themselves, rather than the more traditional *internal combustion*. (As
> evidenced by the huge flashes and bangs as they raced round the track.)
That's quite common on race-tuned carburetor-engined cars, under certain
circumstances they simply pour so much fuel into the engine that some of it
goes unburnt through the exhaust system and ignites once the exhaust
mixtures mixes with enough oxygen in the atmosphere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I'm still puzzled about the Race of Champions. They raced several
>> designs of car which seemed to be using *external combustion* to
>> propell themselves, rather than the more traditional *internal
>> combustion*. (As evidenced by the huge flashes and bangs as they raced
>> round the track.)
>
> That's quite common on race-tuned carburetor-engined cars, under certain
> circumstances they simply pour so much fuel into the engine that some of
> it goes unburnt through the exhaust system and ignites once the exhaust
> mixtures mixes with enough oxygen in the atmosphere.
You would think, though, that if that fuel had burned inside the engine,
it would deliver more power. And since the goal of any race-tuned engine
is to produce maximum power......
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And, someone once said if your car is loud, you're not getting the most
> performance.
Not sure how true that is, formula 1 cars sound painfully loud yet the
clever bods there so far have not come up with a way to make them quieter
and generate more power at the same time...
Also I guess the silencer in your road-car exhaust system sucks a bit of
power (the engine has to push harder to push the exhaust gasses through it),
removing it should make your car louder and a bit faster.
Maybe someone could find a way to convert the sound energy from an engine
into mechanical or electrical energy...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> And, someone once said if your car is loud, you're not getting the
>> most performance.
>
> Not sure how true that is, formula 1 cars sound painfully loud yet the
> clever bods there so far have not come up with a way to make them
> quieter and generate more power at the same time...
Hehe... All the classic cars rush past sounding like a pack of angry
bees, and then an F1 car comes out, sounding like an angry mosquito.
There's something deeply amusing about an angry but tiny animal...
> Also I guess the silencer in your road-car exhaust system sucks a bit of
> power (the engine has to push harder to push the exhaust gasses through
> it), removing it should make your car louder and a bit faster.
I don't know about that - I tried driving my car with no silencer, and
it was *actually impossible* to exceed about 25 MPH. The car simply
would not accelerate, even on the flat.
(OTOH, it was a fairly old car. But normally it would happily to 90 or so.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You would think, though, that if that fuel had burned inside the engine,
> it would deliver more power. And since the goal of any race-tuned engine
> is to produce maximum power......
No, there is a limit to how much can burn inside the cylinder, it's better
to dump in slightly above this amount rather than slightly below it. Of
course modern engines can control electronically the amount of fuel way more
accurately, and especially in road cars you certainly don't want to be
wasting fuel out the back!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hehe... All the classic cars rush past sounding like a pack of angry bees,
> and then an F1 car comes out, sounding like an angry mosquito.
Something to do with the F1 car engine rotating at 3x the speed of the
classic cars.
> I don't know about that - I tried driving my car with no silencer, and it
> was *actually impossible* to exceed about 25 MPH. The car simply would not
> accelerate, even on the flat.
OK, so maybe you need to redesign the other parts of the exhaust system that
were designed with the silencer in mind. But there's a reason why race cars
don't have silencers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Hehe... All the classic cars rush past sounding like a pack of angry
>> bees, and then an F1 car comes out, sounding like an angry mosquito.
>
> Something to do with the F1 car engine rotating at 3x the speed of the
> classic cars.
Yeah, probably that. ;-)
Actually, what was notable about the F1 cars wasn't so much the speed,
but the *acceleration*. You see the cars go past on a straight, and it
looks just like any other road full of traffic. But we sat at
Silverstone on a corner. The cars would come up to it, go round it quite
slowly, and then just *VANISH* off into the distance like they wer toy
cars made of paper... it was pretty insane.
Also, watching an F1 car going round the tiny, twisty indoor circuit at
the RoC, I noticed that it sounded like the engine was on a limiter the
whole time. It produced a constant note like a tuning fork. Then the
driver did a few dounuts, and it's amazing how quickly the engine revs
up and down. Like it just has no flywheel at all! Heh.
>> I don't know about that - I tried driving my car with no silencer, and
>> it was *actually impossible* to exceed about 25 MPH. The car simply
>> would not accelerate, even on the flat.
>
> OK, so maybe you need to redesign the other parts of the exhaust system
> that were designed with the silencer in mind. But there's a reason why
> race cars don't have silencers.
Fo' shizzle! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:497872c7$1@news.povray.org...
> Though a decent tuned exhaust does sound nice ...
Agreed. There was motorbike back in the late 70's, early 80's called the
Honda 400/4. I think it was the first to use a 4 into 1 exhaust sytem at
that engine capacity. Hugely popular simply because it sounded fantastic.
(It moved a bit too!) :)
> And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson motorcycles.
Me wants. :)
~Steve~
>
> --
> ~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually, what was notable about the F1 cars wasn't so much the speed, but
> the *acceleration*. You see the cars go past on a straight, and it looks
> just like any other road full of traffic. But we sat at Silverstone on a
> corner. The cars would come up to it, go round it quite slowly, and then
> just *VANISH* off into the distance like they wer toy cars made of
> paper... it was pretty insane.
Acceleration is determined by the power to weight ratio. A "normal" family
road car has perhaps 70-90 HP per ton, a fast sporty road car perhaps
130-150. A formula 1 car has about 1300 HP per ton.
> Also, watching an F1 car going round the tiny, twisty indoor circuit at
> the RoC, I noticed that it sounded like the engine was on a limiter the
> whole time.
Probably, without an electronic limiter the engine would likely self
destruct quite quickly. And for demo purposes I guess they turn down the
limiter to quite a low RPM to avoid needlessly damaging an engine. And the
driver probably just had his foot to the floor bouncing off the limiter the
whole time.
> It produced a constant note like a tuning fork. Then the driver did a few
> dounuts, and it's amazing how quickly the engine revs up and down. Like it
> just has no flywheel at all! Heh.
Pretty much no flywheel, no, that's why whenever some non-F1-driver tries to
drive one they usually stall it immediately. Once the car is moving of
course there is not really any need for a flywheel.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> OK, so maybe you need to redesign the other parts of the exhaust system
> that were designed with the silencer in mind. But there's a reason why
> race cars don't have silencers.
>
Hmm. Good point, though. Just about any racing engine is painfully loud.
And that logic may only apply to certain kinds of noise, and maybe only
to street vehicles. Something about how the resonator in the exhaust
pulls more of the exhaust out of the cylinders, allowing for a better
mix of fresh fuel and air.
Of course, it could all be made up by some anit-noise group...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
>> And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson motorcycles.
>
> Me wants. :)
>
Just don't put a straight pipe on it and drive around neighborhoods at
2:30am.. Or rev the engine incessantly next to someone in a car with the
window down. Its just not nice...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just don't put a straight pipe on it and drive around neighborhoods at
> 2:30am.. Or rev the engine incessantly next to someone in a car with the
> window down. Its just not nice...
And try not to set off too many alarms on parked cars!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49787f6f$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>>> And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson
>>> motorcycles.
>>
>> Me wants. :)
>>
>
> Just don't put a straight pipe on it and drive around neighborhoods at
> 2:30am.. Or rev the engine incessantly next to someone in a car with the
> window down. Its just not nice...
LOL, I totally agree. My mates have Harley's and I've often wondered what
locals think about the noise.
~Steve~
>
> --
> ~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> A bit like those people who buy a Vaxhaul Nova and then try to make it
>> look like a Ferrari.
>
> The key word here is *look*. I prefer to get a car that looks like a
> Vauxhall Nova and *goes* like a Ferrari :-)
I had a friend who did rally racing. He had a car that looked like a VW
beetle that had been rolled down a hill. (It was.) It had a V8 in it, with
racing tires, two sets of brakes, all that. Was fun to blow away the camaros.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Hugely popular simply because it sounded fantastic.
"But the Mazda goes Hmmmmmmmm!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
> and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
> something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now it's
> something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
>
Only problems are: a) slow (faster isn't much faster, and costs double),
and b) limited number of "write cycles". And, no, the 250GB one is not
$2/GB. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful
>> sizes and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it
>> was something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now
>> it's something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
>>
> Only problems are: a) slow (faster isn't much faster, and costs double),
> and b) limited number of "write cycles". And, no, the 250GB one is not
> $2/GB. lol
I didn't say $2/GB, I said £2/GB. Different currency. :-P
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/152605
250GB solid-state drive, £529.89. That's almost exactly £2/GB.
As for "slow"... presumably the win is the massive decrease in seek
time, rather than sequential transfer speed. (I think I saw a benchmark
somewhere... but I bet I can't find it now.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Hey, do you remember the old PCs that used to have a "turbo button" on
> the front? Why the **** would you ever turn that off?! o_O
There was one thing they were good for: Older games ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > why don't they just make cases out of copper??)
>
> Too heavy and very soft.
.... and maybe also more expensive? I mean, people actually begin to steal cables
from construction sites... and not by the spool, but by the yard...
And then I guess it's also heavier than Aluminum, which I'd suspect to be the
main reason for gamers to get an Alu casing: Carrying it to the LAN party.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> There were TSRs written for MS-DOS that did just that for machines that
> had faster processors but no turbo button. :-)
Yeah, but they used up precious memory, which the Turbo didn't ;)
In addition, the TSRs would make the system run a bit less smoothly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>
> And then I guess it's also heavier than Aluminum, which I'd suspect to be the
> main reason for gamers to get an Alu casing: Carrying it to the LAN party.
>
Magnesium. The ultimate in portability. My camera still blows me away,
the chassis is a Mg alloy and feels like plastic.
Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:29:29 -0500, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There were TSRs written for MS-DOS that did just that for machines that
>> had faster processors but no turbo button. :-)
>
> Yeah, but they used up precious memory, which the Turbo didn't ;)
Absolutely. Managing TSRs was always a lot of fun. (OK, maybe not).
> In addition, the TSRs would make the system run a bit less smoothly.
They could, but my experience was generally good. Unless the TSR was
poorly written, in which case it got used only once. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:46:14 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
>
>> And then I guess it's also heavier than Aluminum, which I'd suspect to
>> be the main reason for gamers to get an Alu casing: Carrying it to the
>> LAN party.
>>
>>
> Magnesium. The ultimate in portability. My camera still blows me away,
> the chassis is a Mg alloy and feels like plastic.
>
> Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
I just had a picture flash through my mind (if you'll pardon the pun) of
a case made out of pure Magnesium. In my mind's eye, it didn't last very
long, but it was spectacular. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> They could, but my experience was generally good. Unless the TSR was
> poorly written, in which case it got used only once. :-)
>
Sidekick comes to mind as a particularly troublesome TSR.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> I just had a picture flash through my mind (if you'll pardon the pun) of
> a case made out of pure Magnesium. In my mind's eye, it didn't last very
> long, but it was spectacular. :-)
>
> Jim
Something like ...
http://macenstein.com/default/archives/1405
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Sidekick comes to mind as a particularly troublesome TSR.
But very popular. Indeed, Sidekick was why people invented the SysRq key.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
