New version of Avast released
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Puran Defrag
Next: {UPDATE} VLC media player 1.0.5
From: H-Man on 4 Feb 2010 10:05 On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:54:03 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> wrote in > news:4b69acee$0$77565$892e0abb(a)auth.newsreader.octanews.com: > >> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:48:51 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b68a930$0$1543 >>> $91cee783(a)newsreader04.highway.telekom.at: >>> >>>> Bear Bottoms wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in >>>>> news:4b6772a1$0$1549 $91cee783(a)newsreader03.highway.telekom.at: >>>>> > What is true about that 64bit GfX port, implemented in XP? >>>>> > Anyone!? >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> It's blazing fast if you can find programs designed to run on it :) >>>> >>>> phhhh, how do you mean that? I run on my NT5.1/DOS anything between >>>> 1974 and 2010 (if not too ego-shooter and 3d capabailities). DOS, >>>> Win3, Win9x, Nt4, even Windows 7 I should try a look ;) >>>> >>>> But I guess that my chipest can't wear a windows 7 capable GfX >>>> Card... XP is still ok on it (1996 chipdet!" XP=2001 ~2002) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The ability of 64 is something like 64 to the 64th power. Calculate >>> that against 32 to the 32nd power. Huge difference in processing >>> ability. If you can find programs that make use of that, you will see >>> incredible processing ability. >> >> How do you define processing ability? Are you sure about your math >> here? AFAIK your statement here is almost entirely inaccurate. >> > > No it isn't, the analogy of powers is as such. Well, if your analogy of powers is applied to processing power or "ability", well then yes it is almost entirely inaccurate. The math is entirely wrong. If you meant something else then I missed your point. -- HK
From: H-Man on 4 Feb 2010 10:31 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 08:05:23 -0700, H-Man wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:54:03 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > >> H-Man <Spam(a)bites.fs> wrote in >> news:4b69acee$0$77565$892e0abb(a)auth.newsreader.octanews.com: >> >>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:48:51 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >>> >>>> "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b68a930$0$1543 >>>> $91cee783(a)newsreader04.highway.telekom.at: >>>> >>>>> Bear Bottoms wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in >>>>>> news:4b6772a1$0$1549 $91cee783(a)newsreader03.highway.telekom.at: >>>>>> > What is true about that 64bit GfX port, implemented in XP? >>>>>> > Anyone!? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> It's blazing fast if you can find programs designed to run on it :) >>>>> >>>>> phhhh, how do you mean that? I run on my NT5.1/DOS anything between >>>>> 1974 and 2010 (if not too ego-shooter and 3d capabailities). DOS, >>>>> Win3, Win9x, Nt4, even Windows 7 I should try a look ;) >>>>> >>>>> But I guess that my chipest can't wear a windows 7 capable GfX >>>>> Card... XP is still ok on it (1996 chipdet!" XP=2001 ~2002) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The ability of 64 is something like 64 to the 64th power. Calculate >>>> that against 32 to the 32nd power. Huge difference in processing >>>> ability. If you can find programs that make use of that, you will see >>>> incredible processing ability. >>> >>> How do you define processing ability? Are you sure about your math >>> here? AFAIK your statement here is almost entirely inaccurate. >>> >> >> No it isn't, the analogy of powers is as such. > > Well, if your analogy of powers is applied to processing power or > "ability", well then yes it is almost entirely inaccurate. The math is > entirely wrong. If you meant something else then I missed your point. Sorry, I read some of your later posts. Just a mistake then ;) -- HK
From: SammmmmyLuter on 4 Feb 2010 16:22 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 00:29:09 +0000, za kAT wrote: > pay grade yank talk lol
From: Franklin on 4 Feb 2010 21:58 za kAT wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:40:15 GMT, Franklin wrote: > >>> The ability of 64 is something like 64 to the 64th power. Calculate that >>> against 32 to the 32nd power. > > Wow! *Awesome* I just checked that on 64^64 and I was home last Tuesday > running Chrome in 1994. Thanks BB. > >> You might want to check that. > > Hey, know when you are beaten Frankie, this Guy's hot. He was talking up the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit processing. I think he means 2^64 rather than 64^64 but I guess it doesn't sound so impressive. >>> Huge difference in processing ability. If you can find programs that >>> make use of that, you will see incredible processing ability. > > Thanks for the clearest, bestest, fastest explanation BB!!! You're > *Awesome*
From: Daniel Mandic on 5 Feb 2010 18:30
za kAT wrote: > Your last five posts in this thread show you are way out of your pay > grade on this one. Here's some good advice. Maybe he meant, 64bit needs 'baggare prego', and that not only for the software... -- Daniel Mandic |