1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Hardware has finally outrun bloatware?

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Robert Myers, Feb 1, 2009.

  1. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    I just bought a Dell XPS 121M:

    http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0303045

    Studio XPS-121M; Intel® Core i7 Quad Processor 920; 6GB Tri Channel
    DDR3-1067 SDRAM; 750GB Hard Drive; DVDRW Drive; 19-in-1 Media Card
    Reader; ATI® Radeon HD 4850; 10/100/1000 Network; Microsoft Windows
    Vista Home Premium (64-bit); Display Not Included.

    One penny less than a thousand dollars. I infer that the local store
    picked up 2^6 or more of these boxes and intended to move them at this
    price in a three-day post-Christmas sales event. That's how many
    boxes were advertised as left when I ordered mine. The same box
    prices out at hundreds more (exclusive of shipping) on Dell's website
    (or it did when I made the comparison).

    Wow. This box is many times more powerful than a Cray-1 (Do the
    numbers yourself. I don't feel like haggling). Ordinarily, I
    wouldn't have bought a box without an XP downgrade, except that
    Microsoft has hinted strongly that an upgrade to Windows 7 will only
    be from Vista, and, like it or not, Windows XP support will be under
    the axe as soon as there is a successor that is acceptable to
    corporate buyers. And, I decided, it would take a lot of bloatware to
    bring a quad processor core i7 with 6GB tri channel 1066MHz memory to
    its knees.

    The only problem I've experienced with this system (and it's a biggie)
    is that the display driver is buggy, and it can and has brought the
    entire system down. That is to say, you can overpower bloatware with
    enough hardware muscle, but there is no answer for privileged-mode
    bugs.

    All naysaying to the contrary notwithstanding, this is the very first
    microcomputer I've ever used whose user interface could not be made
    practically unusable in ordinary (the way I use it) use--except, of
    course, for the display adapter bugs, and, yes, I have the most up-to-
    date version of the driver.

    Overkill? I'm not really sure what user who didn't do HPC-type
    calculations would find a use for this box, since, in gaming
    applications, the performance is limited by a so-so graphics adapter.
    People doing video editing, I guess; I don't really know because I
    don't do video editing. Overkill or not, I suspect it will be a long
    time before there are applications to make this box huff and puff, and
    I can still double the RAM by replacing the 1GB ram sticks with 2GB.

    Windows 7 is supposed to be less resource-hungry than Vista, but what
    do I care? The Wintel two-legged robot (bloatware and hardware) has
    finally run out of energy. I'd rather have had a quad-core Itanium
    (more fun), but I'm happy finally to have a computer that eats bad
    programming for breakfast.

    Robert.
    Robert Myers, Feb 1, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. OK, you've just spent $1k on what should be a very, very nice system. I
    should probably keep my mouth shut, but ...

    Have you ever heard of i/o?<g> Are your disks electro-mechanical? Do you
    not still have i/o-bound processes whose lack of speed is correlated
    with the volume of (disk) data to be processed?

    Seriously, you are running hard-core simulation software that is
    fully multi-threaded? You've checked and you get a nice, even
    distribution of cycles across the 4 cpu's?

    Not certain I understand the issue with the display driver. Brought
    the whole system down? More detail might be helpful.

    AQ

    On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:38:22 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers <> wrote:

    >I just bought a Dell XPS 121M:
    >
    >http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0303045
    >
    >Studio XPS-121M; Intel® Core i7 Quad Processor 920; 6GB Tri Channel
    >DDR3-1067 SDRAM; 750GB Hard Drive; DVDRW Drive; 19-in-1 Media Card
    >Reader; ATI® Radeon HD 4850; 10/100/1000 Network; Microsoft Windows
    >Vista Home Premium (64-bit); Display Not Included.
    >
    >One penny less than a thousand dollars. I infer that the local store
    >picked up 2^6 or more of these boxes and intended to move them at this
    >price in a three-day post-Christmas sales event. That's how many
    >boxes were advertised as left when I ordered mine. The same box
    >prices out at hundreds more (exclusive of shipping) on Dell's website
    >(or it did when I made the comparison).
    >
    >Wow. This box is many times more powerful than a Cray-1 (Do the
    >numbers yourself. I don't feel like haggling). Ordinarily, I
    >wouldn't have bought a box without an XP downgrade, except that
    >Microsoft has hinted strongly that an upgrade to Windows 7 will only
    >be from Vista, and, like it or not, Windows XP support will be under
    >the axe as soon as there is a successor that is acceptable to
    >corporate buyers. And, I decided, it would take a lot of bloatware to
    >bring a quad processor core i7 with 6GB tri channel 1066MHz memory to
    >its knees.
    >
    >The only problem I've experienced with this system (and it's a biggie)
    >is that the display driver is buggy, and it can and has brought the
    >entire system down. That is to say, you can overpower bloatware with
    >enough hardware muscle, but there is no answer for privileged-mode
    >bugs.
    >
    >All naysaying to the contrary notwithstanding, this is the very first
    >microcomputer I've ever used whose user interface could not be made
    >practically unusable in ordinary (the way I use it) use--except, of
    >course, for the display adapter bugs, and, yes, I have the most up-to-
    >date version of the driver.
    >
    >Overkill? I'm not really sure what user who didn't do HPC-type
    >calculations would find a use for this box, since, in gaming
    >applications, the performance is limited by a so-so graphics adapter.
    >People doing video editing, I guess; I don't really know because I
    >don't do video editing. Overkill or not, I suspect it will be a long
    >time before there are applications to make this box huff and puff, and
    >I can still double the RAM by replacing the 1GB ram sticks with 2GB.
    >
    >Windows 7 is supposed to be less resource-hungry than Vista, but what
    >do I care? The Wintel two-legged robot (bloatware and hardware) has
    >finally run out of energy. I'd rather have had a quad-core Itanium
    >(more fun), but I'm happy finally to have a computer that eats bad
    >programming for breakfast.
    >
    >Robert.


    "The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up.
    The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up.
    The monkey stumbled, mama.
    The baboon fell.
    The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!"
    - from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935
    Alphonse Q Muthafuyer, Feb 2, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Myers

    daytripper Guest

    On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:38:22 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers <>
    wrote:

    >I just bought a Dell XPS 121M:
    >
    >http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0303045
    >
    >Studio XPS-121M; Intel® Core i7 Quad Processor 920; 6GB Tri Channel
    >DDR3-1067 SDRAM; 750GB Hard Drive; DVDRW Drive; 19-in-1 Media Card
    >Reader; ATI® Radeon HD 4850; 10/100/1000 Network; Microsoft Windows
    >Vista Home Premium (64-bit); Display Not Included.
    >
    >One penny less than a thousand dollars. I infer that the local store
    >picked up 2^6 or more of these boxes and intended to move them at this
    >price in a three-day post-Christmas sales event. That's how many
    >boxes were advertised as left when I ordered mine. The same box
    >prices out at hundreds more (exclusive of shipping) on Dell's website
    >(or it did when I made the comparison).
    >
    >Wow. This box is many times more powerful than a Cray-1 (Do the
    >numbers yourself. I don't feel like haggling). Ordinarily, I
    >wouldn't have bought a box without an XP downgrade, except that
    >Microsoft has hinted strongly that an upgrade to Windows 7 will only
    >be from Vista, and, like it or not, Windows XP support will be under
    >the axe as soon as there is a successor that is acceptable to
    >corporate buyers. And, I decided, it would take a lot of bloatware to
    >bring a quad processor core i7 with 6GB tri channel 1066MHz memory to
    >its knees.
    >
    >The only problem I've experienced with this system (and it's a biggie)
    >is that the display driver is buggy, and it can and has brought the
    >entire system down. That is to say, you can overpower bloatware with
    >enough hardware muscle, but there is no answer for privileged-mode
    >bugs.
    >
    >All naysaying to the contrary notwithstanding, this is the very first
    >microcomputer I've ever used whose user interface could not be made
    >practically unusable in ordinary (the way I use it) use--except, of
    >course, for the display adapter bugs, and, yes, I have the most up-to-
    >date version of the driver.
    >
    >Overkill? I'm not really sure what user who didn't do HPC-type
    >calculations would find a use for this box, since, in gaming
    >applications, the performance is limited by a so-so graphics adapter.
    >People doing video editing, I guess; I don't really know because I
    >don't do video editing. Overkill or not, I suspect it will be a long
    >time before there are applications to make this box huff and puff, and
    >I can still double the RAM by replacing the 1GB ram sticks with 2GB.
    >
    >Windows 7 is supposed to be less resource-hungry than Vista, but what
    >do I care? The Wintel two-legged robot (bloatware and hardware) has
    >finally run out of energy. I'd rather have had a quad-core Itanium
    >(more fun), but I'm happy finally to have a computer that eats bad
    >programming for breakfast.
    >
    >Robert.


    So, someone is unloading a shi@tload of boxes with effed-up graphics?
    daytripper, Feb 2, 2009
    #3
  4. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Feb 1, 10:14 pm, daytripper <> wrote:

    >
    > So, someone is unloading a shi@tload of boxes with effed-up graphics?


    Maybe. I'm puzzled about the selection of capabilities, but only
    because I don't think my needs are typical. As a bonus, I don't see
    how this box will ever be overwhelmed by bloatware. Perhaps I just
    lack imagination.

    Robert.
    Robert Myers, Feb 2, 2009
    #4
  5. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Feb 1, 10:01 pm, Alphonse Q Muthafuyer <>
    wrote:
    > OK, you've just spent $1k on what should be a very, very nice system. I
    > should probably keep my mouth shut, but ...
    >
    > Have you ever heard of i/o?<g> Are your disks electro-mechanical? Do you
    > not still have i/o-bound processes whose lack of speed is correlated
    > with the volume of (disk) data to be processed?
    >


    Well, sure. I could pick a set of disk-intensive tasks that
    bottleneck with disk i/o. If that has prospects for making the system
    unresponsive, I guess I don't understand how. Those applications will
    only be able to proceed as fast as they can get and put information,
    but that's life. What won't happen is that the system won't come to a
    screeching halt as it mixes up heavy disk i/o from applications with a
    need to swap memory to disk because I have too many applications
    open. If my view is naive, educate me.

    So, maybe the step up for this system is solid state disks rather than
    more memory.

    > Seriously, you are running hard-core simulation software that is
    > fully multi-threaded? You've checked and you get a nice, even
    > distribution of cycles across the 4 cpu's?
    >

    Parallelism is well in hand for the kinds of tasks that interest me.

    > Not certain I understand the issue with the display driver. Brought
    > the whole system down? More detail might be helpful.
    >

    Yes indeed. Shut the system down. Literally. There have been two
    incidents with the display driver. One made the system burp, with
    some kind of announcement from which it recovered. The other produced
    a panic shutdown. The diagnostic information from the panic shutdown
    said that the problem occurred in the display driver. I'm not a
    windows guy, so I don't understand how the OS is unable to protect
    itself from a device driver, but apparently that's the case.

    Robert.
    Robert Myers, Feb 2, 2009
    #5
  6. On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 20:40:59 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers <> wrote:

    >On Feb 1, 10:01 pm, Alphonse Q Muthafuyer <>
    >wrote:
    >> OK, you've just spent $1k on what should be a very, very nice system. I
    >> should probably keep my mouth shut, but ...
    >>
    >> Have you ever heard of i/o?<g> Are your disks electro-mechanical? Do you
    >> not still have i/o-bound processes whose lack of speed is correlated
    >> with the volume of (disk) data to be processed?
    >>

    >
    >Well, sure. I could pick a set of disk-intensive tasks that
    >bottleneck with disk i/o. If that has prospects for making the system
    >unresponsive, I guess I don't understand how. Those applications will
    >only be able to proceed as fast as they can get and put information,
    >but that's life. What won't happen is that the system won't come to a
    >screeching halt as it mixes up heavy disk i/o from applications with a
    >need to swap memory to disk because I have too many applications
    >open. If my view is naive, educate me.


    The history of computing is replete with repetitions of sequences like:

    a.) Hardware developers invent new viable technology.
    b.) Software developers (who have been watching carefully)
    write code to take advantage of a.).
    c.) Business, research, etc folk find ways to make use of new
    computing abilities/resources.

    In the case of, say, generations of memory technology (ie DDR, DDR2, etc)
    the sequence can proceed relatively quickly. New, faster memory, they've
    already been working on 64-bit systems that allow addressing beyond
    old restrictive boundaries (ie 4 gb limit), things proceed with no
    major obstacles.

    In the case of parallelism, things are different. To implement, a
    lot of software has to be rewritten, and there are limits on what
    processes lend themselves to running in parallel. See:

    http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1193856&rll=1

    On the other hand, if you are not working for anyone, and are merely
    designing experiments for yourself, you can limit yourself to the
    context of your available resources and, I suppose, be happy.

    >So, maybe the step up for this system is solid state disks rather than
    >more memory.


    With the right (I assume server-grade) pipe, SSD can be very much
    like adding memory for reads. Writes take longer.

    Your 6 gb sounds very adequate for ordinary and perhaps some not-
    so-ordinary desktop applications. Outside the domain of desktop
    apps, 6-12 gb is not so impressive. It all depends on the apps.

    >> Seriously, you are running hard-core simulation software that is
    >> fully multi-threaded? You've checked and you get a nice, even
    >> distribution of cycles across the 4 cpu's?
    >>

    >Parallelism is well in hand for the kinds of tasks that interest me.


    That is a less-than-detailed response. Are you adept with Task
    Manager?

    >> Not certain I understand the issue with the display driver. Brought
    >> the whole system down? More detail might be helpful.
    >>

    >Yes indeed. Shut the system down. Literally. There have been two
    >incidents with the display driver. One made the system burp, with
    >some kind of announcement from which it recovered. The other produced
    >a panic shutdown. The diagnostic information from the panic shutdown
    >said that the problem occurred in the display driver. I'm not a
    >windows guy, so I don't understand how the OS is unable to protect
    >itself from a device driver, but apparently that's the case.


    Your ATI® Radeon HD 4850 driver is fully supported for Vista Home
    Premium 64? Have you made support inquiries? There are "little holes"
    in all Windows products: it's possible that a problem with your
    driver has found one. With such a system, I'd follow the usual
    support channels first. If that yields no relief, you might want
    to take a peek at :

    technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx

    AQ

    "The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up.
    The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up.
    The monkey stumbled, mama.
    The baboon fell.
    The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!"
    - from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935
    Alphonse Q Muthafuyer, Feb 2, 2009
    #6
  7. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Feb 2, 12:24 pm, Alphonse Q Muthafuyer <>
    wrote:

    >
    > In the case of parallelism, things are different. To implement, a
    > lot of software has to be rewritten, and there are limits on what
    > processes lend themselves to running in parallel. See:
    >
    > http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1193856&rll=1
    >


    Donald Knuth needs to stick to his knitting--which isn't parallel
    computing.

    > On the other hand, if you are not working for anyone, and are merely
    > designing experiments for yourself, you can limit yourself to the
    > context of your available resources and, I suppose, be happy.


    I made the post because it touches on some subjects of current
    interest: core i7, what to do with all that power, Vista device driver
    bugs, mountains of unsold computers that would have been snapped up a
    year ago. I thought I might start some interesting conversation.
    What I didn't post for was to get into another pissing match.

    >
    > That is a less-than-detailed response. Are you adept with Task
    > Manager?


    I'm not sure what being adept with Task manager means. I certainly
    know how to use it, and I know how to use the resource monitor.

    That some kinds of computing tasks lend themselves well to (say)
    clusters is well understood, and I don't see much point in repeating
    any of that discussion here.

    >
    > Your ATI® Radeon HD 4850 driver is fully supported for Vista Home
    > Premium 64? Have you made support inquiries? There are "little holes"
    > in all Windows products: it's possible that a problem with your
    > driver has found one. With such a system, I'd follow the usual
    > support channels first. If that yields no relief, you might want
    > to take a peek at :
    >
    > technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx
    >

    That's an interesting link. I'm not sure how much time I want to
    devote to windows.

    Robert.
    Robert Myers, Feb 2, 2009
    #7
  8. Robert Myers

    Nate Edel Guest

    Robert Myers <> wrote:
    > Overkill? I'm not really sure what user who didn't do HPC-type
    > calculations would find a use for this box, since, in gaming
    > applications, the performance is limited by a so-so graphics adapter.
    > People doing video editing, I guess; I don't really know because I
    > don't do video editing. Overkill or not, I suspect it will be a long
    > time before there are applications to make this box huff and puff, and
    > I can still double the RAM by replacing the 1GB ram sticks with 2GB.


    A single SATA spindle is grossly inadequate for video editing, but with a
    good amount of additional disk, it would be pretty good for video editing.
    The expansion options aren't great for it, but the disk needed would
    certainly be doable at the low end of things.

    --
    Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
    preferred email |
    is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
    posting domain | for it."
    Nate Edel, Feb 3, 2009
    #8
  9. On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:21:44 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers <> wrote:

    >On Feb 2, 12:24 pm, Alphonse Q Muthafuyer <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> In the case of parallelism, things are different. To implement, a
    >> lot of software has to be rewritten, and there are limits on what
    >> processes lend themselves to running in parallel. See:
    >>
    >> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1193856&rll=1
    >>

    >
    >Donald Knuth needs to stick to his knitting--which isn't parallel
    >computing.


    Silly. He's dying, but I suspect he can still knit algorithms all around you
    (and me). But he's just a very knowledgable pragmatist: not someone that needs
    to be worshipped.

    >> On the other hand, if you are not working for anyone, and are merely
    >> designing experiments for yourself, you can limit yourself to the
    >> context of your available resources and, I suppose, be happy.

    >
    >I made the post because it touches on some subjects of current
    >interest: core i7, what to do with all that power, Vista device driver
    >bugs, mountains of unsold computers that would have been snapped up a
    >year ago. I thought I might start some interesting conversation.
    >What I didn't post for was to get into another pissing match.


    Nor did I.

    I'll grant that your post may well have been of general interest.

    >> That is a less-than-detailed response. Are you adept with Task
    >> Manager?

    >
    >I'm not sure what being adept with Task manager means. I certainly
    >know how to use it, and I know how to use the resource monitor.
    >
    >That some kinds of computing tasks lend themselves well to (say)
    >clusters is well understood, and I don't see much point in repeating
    >any of that discussion here.


    I am much less convinced as to how well understood it is.

    >> Your ATI® Radeon HD 4850 driver is fully supported for Vista Home
    >> Premium 64? Have you made support inquiries? There are "little holes"
    >> in all Windows products: it's possible that a problem with your
    >> driver has found one. With such a system, I'd follow the usual
    >> support channels first. If that yields no relief, you might want
    >> to take a peek at :
    >>
    >> technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx
    >>

    >That's an interesting link. I'm not sure how much time I want to
    >devote to windows.


    Your call to make.

    Just a brief mention about "eats bad programming for breakfast" and bloatware:
    with many, many millions of lines of code that go into current Windows
    product, there's bound to be some degree of bad programming, but it is
    bloatware because it was designed to be virtually all things to virtually all
    people. That's why it is "ubiquitous". 'Tis both a blessing and a damnation.

    But you already knew all that. Eh?

    AQ

    "The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up.
    The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up.
    The monkey stumbled, mama.
    The baboon fell.
    The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!"
    - from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935
    Alphonse Q Muthafuyer, Feb 3, 2009
    #9
  10. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Feb 3, 5:08 pm, Alphonse Q Muthafuyer <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:21:44 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
    >
    > >Donald Knuth needs to stick to his knitting--which isn't parallel
    > >computing.

    >
    > Silly. He's dying, but I suspect he can still knit algorithms all around you
    > (and me). But he's just a very knowledgable pragmatist: not someone that needs
    > to be worshipped.
    >

    Good thing I got my public lampoon of his the past is the way it
    should always be attitude in before I could be accused of being in bad
    taste. Right now, there is nowhere to go but multiple cores, and
    people have seen it coming for a long, long time. Just not Donald
    Knuth.

    >
    > >That some kinds of computing tasks lend themselves well to (say)
    > >clusters is well understood, and I don't see much point in repeating
    > >any of that discussion here.

    >
    > I am much less convinced as to how well understood it is.
    >

    Depends on what you are referring to by "it." There is a large enough
    class of applications that are well in hand that zillions of
    transistors in any plausible format will be marketable for as far as
    the imagination can wander.

    That there are also many things that are not understood at all is
    pretty common knowledge, and a frequent subject of public discussion.
    Just not here.

    >
    > Just a brief mention about "eats bad programming for breakfast" and bloatware:
    > with many, many millions of lines of code that go into current Windows
    > product, there's bound to be some degree of bad programming, but it is
    > bloatware because it was designed to be virtually all things to virtuallyall
    > people. That's why it is "ubiquitous". 'Tis both a blessing and a damnation.
    >
    > But you already knew all that. Eh?
    >

    Computer "science" and software "engineering" are embarrassments to
    science and engineering. If you're going to defend them and be snotty
    at the same time, I suppose it stands to reason you wouldn't be
    posting under your real name.

    Robert.
    Robert Myers, Feb 4, 2009
    #10
  11. On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:01:39 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers <> wrote:

    >On Feb 3, 5:08 pm, Alphonse Q Muthafuyer <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:21:44 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers
    >>
    >> >Donald Knuth needs to stick to his knitting--which isn't parallel
    >> >computing.

    >>
    >> Silly. He's dying, but I suspect he can still knit algorithms all around you
    >> (and me). But he's just a very knowledgable pragmatist: not someone that needs
    >> to be worshipped.
    >>

    >Good thing I got my public lampoon of his the past is the way it
    >should always be attitude in before I could be accused of being in bad
    >taste.


    What about being accused of flunking hi-school English? :)

    >Right now, there is nowhere to go but multiple cores, and
    >people have seen it coming for a long, long time. Just not Donald
    >Knuth.


    "Ees Wrong-Wrong, senor!" He knows it. Just doesn't like the way
    it is promoted, something like "the savior of desktop computing".
    It may or may-not do *you* a world of good: it doesn't for the
    average desktop user. And won't for a long, long time, if ever.

    >> >That some kinds of computing tasks lend themselves well to (say)
    >> >clusters is well understood, and I don't see much point in repeating
    >> >any of that discussion here.

    >>
    >> I am much less convinced as to how well understood it is.
    >>

    >Depends on what you are referring to by "it." There is a large enough
    >class of applications that are well in hand that zillions of
    >transistors in any plausible format will be marketable for as far as
    >the imagination can wander.


    Depends on whose imagination is being exercised.

    >That there are also many things that are not understood at all is
    >pretty common knowledge, and a frequent subject of public discussion.
    >Just not here.


    This is not your private domain. Any subject possibly relevant to
    computing with Intel products is valid in this forum, and the simple
    fact that many compute processes are by their nature serial can be
    very, very relevant.

    >> Just a brief mention about "eats bad programming for breakfast" and bloatware:
    >> with many, many millions of lines of code that go into current Windows
    >> product, there's bound to be some degree of bad programming, but it is
    >> bloatware because it was designed to be virtually all things to virtually all
    >> people. That's why it is "ubiquitous". 'Tis both a blessing and a damnation.
    >>
    >> But you already knew all that. Eh?
    >>

    >Computer "science" and software "engineering" are embarrassments to
    >science and engineering.


    Only occasionally.

    >If you're going to defend them and be snotty
    >at the same time, I suppose it stands to reason you wouldn't be
    >posting under your real name.


    I wasn't being snotty. Merely expressed a totally different outlook on
    what you're doing and why. As for names, all names are "real names", or
    "false names", or whatever you like in this milieu.

    Tell the truth. You mostly just wanted to brag about your slick new system.
    You should have at least followed up and reported on the video problem so as
    to convey full info. Who do you think handed you your 4-core funtionality
    if not Computer "science" and software "engineering"????

    Multi-core is a valid approach to server technology. Intel is shoving it down
    desktop users throats so they won't have to invest in 2 materially differing
    R&D and production approaches. And their marketing-droids are going wild with
    it.

    And now I'm Gone, Gone, Gone, Gone, never to return (to this thread).

    AQ

    "The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up.
    The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up.
    The monkey stumbled, mama.
    The baboon fell.
    The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!"
    - from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935
    Alphonse Q Muthafuyer, Feb 5, 2009
    #11
  12. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Feb 5, 5:59 pm, Alphonse Q Muthafuyer <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:01:39 -0800 (PST), Robert Myers <> wrote:


    > >Good thing I got my public lampoon of his the past is the way it
    > >should always be attitude in before I could be accused of being in bad
    > >taste.  

    >
    > What about being accused of flunking hi-school English? :)
    >

    I have a collection of Knuth's original journal articles, which I read
    with fascination. Respecting his abilities where they deserve respect
    is different from giving credence to prophecies that are driven by his
    own perspective, not the least of which is the limited durability of
    much of his corpus. It happens to everyone.

    > It may or may-not do *you* a world of good: it doesn't for the
    > average desktop user. And won't for a long, long time, if ever.
    >

    I'm not interested in average desktop users.

    >
    > >That there are also many things that are not understood at all is
    > >pretty common knowledge, and a frequent subject of public discussion.
    > >Just not here.

    >
    > This is not your private domain. Any subject possibly relevant to
    > computing with Intel products is valid in this forum, and the simple
    > fact that many compute processes are by their nature serial can be
    > very, very relevant.
    >

    You are announcing things that have been pretty well beaten to death
    elsewhere by people who've been around for a long, long time.

    >
    > >Computer "science" and software "engineering" are embarrassments to
    > >science and engineering.  

    >
    > Only occasionally.
    >

    That's a matter of opinion. Clearly, we disagree. It's an open
    question as to what the net impact of computers has been, outside the
    sciences. I see a world of self-justifying and endlessly multiplying
    complexity with self-assured promoters like you thrashing away at the
    expense of everyone else.

    > >If you're going to defend them and be snotty
    > >at the same time, I suppose it stands to reason you wouldn't be
    > >posting under your real name.

    >
    > I wasn't being snotty. Merely expressed a totally different outlook on
    > what you're doing and why. As for names, all names are "real names", or
    > "false names", or whatever you like in this milieu.
    >

    That's the nice thing about namespaces.

    > Tell the truth. You mostly just wanted to brag about your slick new system.


    Mostly people have not talked about Core i7. The fact that a nearly
    top-of-the-line quad core system can be had for cheap is interesting.
    It's *possible* that applications that could use multiple threads will
    remain so heavily single-threaded, but I doubt it seriously. People
    do a lot of work on PC's. As to wanting to brag about my system, get
    real.

    > You should have at least followed up and reported on the video problem soas
    > to convey full info. Who do you think handed you your 4-core funtionality
    > if not Computer "science" and software "engineering"????
    >

    Electrical engineering, before all this other stuff happened. Well,
    and Physics and Mathematics. Maybe Materials Science. Computer
    science and software engineering just collected a bunch of camp
    followers with bad attitudes, of which you are an example.

    > Multi-core is a valid approach to server technology. Intel is shoving it down
    > desktop users throats so they won't have to invest in 2 materially differing
    > R&D and production approaches. And their marketing-droids are going wild with
    > it.
    >

    Marketing droids are at least as respectable as software droids.

    > And now I'm Gone, Gone, Gone, Gone, never to return (to this thread).
    >

    mmhmm. Poop on the carpet and leave.

    Robert.
    Robert Myers, Feb 6, 2009
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BT
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    493
    User N
    Feb 10, 2006
  2. Madonna
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,583
    f3red
    Feb 8, 2004
  3. Clark Martin

    Bloatware

    Clark Martin, Apr 22, 2006, in forum: Dell
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    412
  4. User N
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    613
    Ben Myers
    Apr 30, 2006
  5. Clark Martin

    Getting Rid of Dell Bloatware.

    Clark Martin, May 1, 2006, in forum: Dell
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    8,123
    hdrdtd
    May 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page