Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 19 Feb 2007 09:59 Ken Smith wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> > >>>There is a huge difference between tasking and being able to > >>>interrupt any task at any time and resuming it seamlessly > >>>later and not being able to start another task until the > >>>previous one is completely finished including EOFing the > >>>files. > >> > >> > >> Batch process mentality bullshit. > > > >Quite the contrary. Your style of thinking is single-use > >concentration of gear. That has been clear since you tried > >to correct your elders. > > MissingProng is a troll. > > The funny thing is that the computer business has swung back and forth on > single vs multiple users. Now we seem to be at the single user end of the > swing. There is a trend back with people suggesting that everyone in the > building's files be maintained on a single server. Unfortunately, with a > Windows system done this way, there is no sure way to back up your files. > I figure at some point someone will bring out 3rd party software that > correctly backs everything for each user correctly. If that happens the > trend will continue back towards multiple users on a computer. The desk > top PC will become more like a smart terminal than a computer. Hybrid Client. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_client It sounds quite sensible to me in fact. Graham
From: krw on 19 Feb 2007 10:01 In article <5c887$45d8a8aa$4fe770f$11838(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com says... > krw wrote: > > > In article <er9fag$8ss_012(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > > > >>In article <MPG.20414665b9b9f85a989fac(a)news.individual.net>, > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> > >>>In article <87wt2gr3fq.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > >>>thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk says... > >>> > >>>>MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: > >>>> > >>>>>On 17 Feb 2007 15:15:20 +0200, Phil Carmody > >>>>><thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>I'm currently running a 500MB LLL reduction on my G5 with 512MB RAM. > >>>>>>I have 72 such reductions to perform. Care to tell me how I could run > >>>>>>all 72 without any of them interfering with the other? Or even 2. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Run one on one CPU and one on the other. > >>>>> > >>>>> I used to with SETI at home all the time, and it most certainly DOES > >>>>>double the number of units a day that machine churned out. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you only have a single CPU machine, however, you will not be able > >>>>>to do this. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have been running dually machines (at the personal level) for over > >>>>>6 years now. They are awesome! > >>>> > >>>>You can't fit 2 500MB jobs into 512MB of RAM. > >>>> > >>>>I am a big fan of the dual G5s too. > >>> > >>>Me too. The G5 program paid my mortgage for five years. ;-) > >> > >>Did it do windows? <GRIN> > > > > > > Of course not! (OTOH, I've never touched a Mac, so...) > > > > I guess you're one of the few MacVirgins remaining then. Macs aren't *that* popular. My bet is that over half the development team never touched the end product. > Saved yourself from that slimy feeling, you did. I would have like to buy one but they were too expensive. I went with a KeithKit Opteron system when I upgraded. -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 19 Feb 2007 10:02 MassiveProng wrote: > I can boot Linux from a DVD and RUN it all day long, and I don't need to do > ANY installation! That sounds interesting. Where can I get one ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 19 Feb 2007 10:09 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> >Sure, a reasonably capable processor will only spend a fraction > >> >of the time doing the decoding/filtering/scaling/whatever, but > >> >for that timeslice, it's working on something that must be > >> >processed in real time. > >> > >> Why real time? > > > >Because watching vids is a real time process. Sheesh. > > No, it is not a real time computing application. It is a > sequential task. It doesn't matter how long the movie > takes to get to your screen; all that matters is that it's > displayed sequentially. What utter nonsense. What good would it be if it displayed the frames at half realtime speed ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 19 Feb 2007 10:10
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhd2lnCTWQM > > > >skipped horribly on initial load, but that looks to be > >more of a bandwidth problem than a CPU one. CPU utilization was > >slightly lower. > > > >SFW. Its main themes are apparently music, a school > >bus, and dancing. Replay was possible without skipping. > >Full screen utilized almost 90% of CPU, so that might be > >an issue. > > > >FWIW. > > > If this becomes a common usage, it sounds like a dedicated > processor will be installed. It's called the CPU. Graham |