Author Topic: Hardware/OS Geek Thread (Read 54496 times)

The Chief · « **Reply #575:** November 11, 2009, 09:27:06 PM »

Holy cow, 11.5 hours battery life, and it's NOT a netbook!

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/11/asus-ul80vt-review/

Nathan · « **Reply #576:** November 11, 2009, 10:08:14 PM »

Quote from: The Chief on November 11, 2009, 09:27:06 PM

Holy cow, 11.5 hours battery life, and it's NOT a netbook!

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/11/asus-ul80vt-review/

Stop that! I can't buy another computer right now!

The Chief · « **Reply #577:** November 18, 2009, 04:17:32 PM »

Here's my tribute to sportsfan's "how much difference could there possibly be between hard drives?" question:

First, my home desktop's data storage drive (WD 1TB 7200 RPM "Black Edition" w/ 32 MB cache):

Second, dual 10,000 RPM drives in RAID 0 at work:

And finally, my home OS/programs drive, an 80 GB Intel Solid State Disk:

PC · « **Reply #578:** November 18, 2009, 04:59:08 PM »

Office 2010 Beta is available for download on Technet.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/2010/en/default.aspx

The Chief · « **Reply #579:** November 18, 2009, 05:03:45 PM »

Unless it's smaller and/or faster than 2007, I honestly don't care. But I'll probably download the final version anyway because I can

Saw someone here today still using Win 98 and Office 97

PC · « **Reply #580:** November 18, 2009, 05:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Dunnkey on November 18, 2009, 05:03:45 PM

Saw someone here today still using Win 98 and Office 97

That's frightening!

The Chief · « **Reply #581:** November 18, 2009, 05:13:18 PM »

Quote from: PC on November 18, 2009, 05:08:57 PM

That's frightening!

Yeah, our security guy went a little nuts on her. Fortunately the machine wasn't connected to the network.

sportsfan882 · « **Reply #582:** November 18, 2009, 05:22:29 PM »

I see your charts, chief. But where are those numbers even coming into play? Just by copying files onto the drive or off of it? Accessing files?

The Chief · « **Reply #583:** November 18, 2009, 06:31:21 PM »

Quote from: sportsfan882 on November 18, 2009, 05:22:29 PM

I see your charts, chief. But where are those numbers even coming into play? Just by copying files onto the drive or off of it? Accessing files?

Depends what you're copying the files to or from, but yes, it can be a factor there. The things that most people would notice is in application launching, or multitasking while running another task that hits the disk a lot (for example if you started launching apps WHILE copying files, or tried to launch several apps at once).

Differences in random io performance can also make a noticeable difference in boot/login speed.

The differences in faster and slower disks are less noticeable for single-user desktops with modern OSes as most are much better at caching, prefetching, and generally making use of available memory than, say, 10 years ago. Most of what I posted would be MUCH more noticeable on a heavily utilized server.

PANatsFan · « **Reply #584:** November 18, 2009, 08:19:37 PM »

Quote from: Dunnkey on November 18, 2009, 05:13:18 PM

Yeah, our security guy went a little nuts on her. Fortunately the machine wasn't connected to the network.

When did they stop releasing security updates for 98?

The Chief · « **Reply #585:** November 18, 2009, 08:32:09 PM »

Quote from: PANatsFan on November 18, 2009, 08:19:37 PM

When did they stop releasing security updates for 98?

Not until July of 2006

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

Nathan · « **Reply #586:** November 18, 2009, 08:44:39 PM »

Quote from: PANatsFan on November 18, 2009, 08:19:37 PM

When did they stop releasing security updates for 98?

How many people do you think will still be using XP in 3 years? Crazy to think that XP was just 3 years after 98 and you could still get it on computers 8 years later.

Nathan · « **Reply #587:** November 19, 2009, 06:57:01 PM »

Google's ChromeOS will boot in under 7 seconds, but you won't be able to run it on just any PC, at least not initially. Everything is in the cloud and the OS itself will be stored on flash memory.

It's supposed to be on low cost netbooks only. The prospect of a web browsing machine that boots that quick is promising, but by low cost they better mean lower than the current netbook pricing of ~$300. I won't pay $300 for a machine that can only browse the web when I could get a full blown netbook for that price. At $100, I'd probably get one for my dad to use as a net browsing appliance.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssComputerHardware/idUSN1917994320091119

Nathan · « **Reply #588:** November 19, 2009, 10:55:26 PM »

Anyone using the flash beta? Apparently it uses GPU acceleration on Windows machines, and has marked improvements in CPU usage on Windows and OS X. I'm sure it's still a hog though.

PANatsFan · « **Reply #589:** November 20, 2009, 01:32:25 AM »

Quote from: Nathan on November 19, 2009, 06:57:01 PM

Google's ChromeOS will boot in under 7 seconds, but you won't be able to run it on just any PC, at least not initially. Everything is in the cloud and the OS itself will be stored on flash memory.

It's supposed to be on low cost netbooks only. The prospect of a web browsing machine that boots that quick is promising, but by low cost they better mean lower than the current netbook pricing of ~$300. I won't pay $300 for a machine that can only browse the web when I could get a full blown netbook for that price. At $100, I'd probably get one for my dad to use as a net browsing appliance.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssComputerHardware/idUSN1917994320091119

I'd never run anything containing any personal information where every cycle was run on a random Google server. Imagine if that got hacked . . .

They used to sell workstations with no HD that booted off a CD that had Netscape and a few other things - you could just swap the CD out for a Linux CD and boom - cheap terminal.

The Chief · « **Reply #590:** November 20, 2009, 08:31:43 AM »

So then what's the difference between Chrome OS and DSL aside from being prettier and less functional?

Quote from: Nathan on November 19, 2009, 10:55:26 PM

Anyone using the flash beta? Apparently it uses GPU acceleration on Windows machines, and has marked improvements in CPU usage on Windows and OS X. I'm sure it's still a hog though.

I thought about it, but the borrowed macbook doesn't have a supported video card, and my desktop has such a surplus of CPU power that I just don't care, especially since I usually run flashblock and adblock anyway

Personally I'm hoping Flash dies and is replaced by HTML5. A man can dream, can't he?

Nathan · « **Reply #591:** November 20, 2009, 02:44:22 PM »

Quote from: Dunnkey on November 20, 2009, 08:31:43 AM

Personally I'm hoping Flash dies and is replaced by HTML5. A man can dream, can't he?

Amen. For instance the only reason I would want flash on my iPhone is to watch videos on sites other than YouTube. But if HTML5 replaces flash video, I'd be set since mobil safari is already HTML5 compliant.

Nathan · « **Reply #592:** November 20, 2009, 06:13:26 PM »

Even if you are a Mac user, you still gotta be able to see that Steve Jobs is, in fact, a giant douche.

Quote

I don't know if this was the right thing for Steve Jobs to say, but on the other hand, I do think it's the perfect thing for him to say. The story, as reported by our buddy Daniel Brusilovsky over at Crunchgear, goes like this: A company called The Little App Factory got a letter from Apple, who had a legal issue with one of their apps, formerly named iPodRip.

Apple didn't like the fact that "iPod" was clearly in the name, and so despite the fact that the software was meant to transfer songs back and forth specifically from an iPod, Apple wanted the name changed. The company's co-owner, John Devor, sent a very long and well-reasoned letter to Mr. Jobs himself explaining that their only wish was to extend Apple's hardware's capabilities, and that they were all Apple fans, and that they'd used the name for a long time and they were worried that a competitor might steal their customers and Jobs was an inspiration to the guy, who'd just dropped out of school, and could they please get a pass on this one?

Jobs' response -- yes, he wrote back personally -- was just three lines:

Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

Kids, that's how you become the kind of guy who runs a brilliant computer company, is seen on the cover of Time multiple times, gets named CEO of the Decade and just generally rocks. I feel for The Little App Factory, I really do, but you gotta believe the Steve. It's not that big of a deal.

We'll do our part, though: the app formerly known as iPodRip is now known as iRip, and is available with a free trial period from the developer's site.

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/11/20/jobs-to-dev-on-app-name-change-not-that-big-of-a-deal/

Also, even I get tired of Apple writers that are that drunk on the Kool-Aid.

The Chief · « **Reply #593:** November 20, 2009, 06:16:40 PM »

Man there are a lot of layers of douche in that story.

PC · « **Reply #594:** November 20, 2009, 06:39:56 PM »

Reason #516, 576 why I despise Steve Jobs.

...which also, coincidentally, happens to be Apple's patent # for the iPod.

Nathan · « **Reply #595:** November 20, 2009, 06:42:04 PM »

He really is an ass. I mean he is an insanely great presenter, but as a person, just a total dick.

CALSGR8 · « **Reply #596:** November 21, 2009, 08:57:34 AM »

Nuff Said:

NatsAddict · « **Reply #597:** November 23, 2009, 03:40:06 PM »

Quote

Intel Core i9 Benched: Six Cores of Pure Joy
(Image removed from quote.)

On paper, the Core i9 might not sound that exciting: It's a lot like the Core i7, except built with a 32nm fabrication process and two extra cores, for a total of six. Early benchmarks, though, say it flies. Sometimes.

The i9 doesn't extract significant advantages from its pumped core count (which brings processing thread count up to 12) in a lot of day to day tasks, so don't expect to see an increase in game performance, Windows startup speed or other single-core optimized tasks. It's when you start rendering video or doing 3D modeling—tasks that are suited to parallelization—that the i9 flexes its muscles.

(Image removed from quote.)

That's roughly a 50% increase in video encoding performance over a similarly clocked i7—already no slouch by any existing standards.

The i9 processors won't ship until sometime in early to mid 2010, and when they do, expect them to be a bit on the expensive side. But man, 50%. I think I can stand to save up a few more bucks, honestly. [PCLab via Electronista]

Gizmodo

The Chief · « **Reply #598:** November 23, 2009, 03:48:00 PM »

That's exactly why it's not that exciting. All the performance gains are entirely predictable. I upgraded from a Q6600 to an i7 860 for the additional clock speed and IPC. The i9 probably won't offer either of those things and unless they announce otherwise, is strictly an LGA 1366 part. Those who need it already know who they are.

I'd really like to see GPU-assisted transcoding get more attention.

Nathan · « **Reply #599:** November 23, 2009, 07:27:36 PM »

Windows 8 on a Core i11 in 2012. End of the world.