Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Better than Atom N450 (Score 1) 564

by washu_k (#45924499) Attached to: PC Shipments In 2013 See the Worst Yearly Decline In History
Both the AMD E2 or Celeron 847 will smoke an Atom N450 in performance. Both are just fine for an average email/web surfing box assuming the rest of the system isn't complete crap. Both have way better graphics as well with the edge going to the E2, but the Celeron has much better CPU performance.

Comment: Re:Current PCs are good enough. (Score 1) 564

by washu_k (#45922961) Attached to: PC Shipments In 2013 See the Worst Yearly Decline In History
Clock speed doesn't mean everything. Remember when the P4 first came out and a P3 of 400-500 lower MHz could keep up with it? Sandy Bridge has very good IPC. I have a laptop with an i5-2467M and I have it configured to lock the speed at a mere 800 MHz when on battery and I don't even notice unless I try to do something CPU intensive. It does have an SSD an 8 GB of RAM though.

As 0123456 said, a Celeron 847 is about twice the speed of a 3.8GHz P4. The Celeron actually has MORE cache than the P4 in total (548K more to be exact). Plus it likely would have faster memory and a much faster interface to the rest of the system components.

Comment: Re:Current PCs are good enough. (Score 4, Interesting) 564

by washu_k (#45921983) Attached to: PC Shipments In 2013 See the Worst Yearly Decline In History
You do realize that a Celeron 847 is way faster than the GP's P4 3.8 GHz? Don't let the Celeron name fool you, it is still a dual core sandy bridge chip, just clocked low.

The lowest end AMD E2s might get bested by the P4, but the higher clocked ones would still be a big improvement.

The bigger problem with most cheap laptops is the slow HD and lack of RAM which would cripple any CPU. Give a Celeron 847 an SSD and 4GB+ and it would be fine for most non CPU intensive or gaming tasks. Much better than the P4 for sure.

+ - Rogers/Fido cellular service out nation-wide->

Submitted by (843637) writes "Cellular carriers Rogers, Fido, and Chatr are currently experiencing a nation-wide outage, which began at approximately 6:00pm EDT (22:00UTC) 09-Oct-2013. All cellular voice services are inoperable, however, the company claims that data and text services are not affected. Some customers are reporting brief periods of service. Attempts to reach Fido's customer service line (1-888-481-3236) failed during their normal business hours; however, once their automated system came back online, it reports that some customer phone number are not recognized by their system."
Link to Original Source

+ - X11 Server Security Hole Plugged Dating Back To 1993->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "CVE-2013-4396 was publicized this week and resolved as the latest X11 Server security advisory. This security advisory is about a use after free memory hole that could lead to system crashes and/or memory corruption, but making this X11 security advisory more pressing is that the issue has been present since September of 1993. For two decades in all X11/X.Org Server releases going back to X11R6.0 has been this vulnerabilty that was only now discovered in the widely-used open-source software and can be fixed by a five-line X Server patch."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:ZFS (Score 1) 268

by washu_k (#43561817) Attached to: Btrfs Is Getting There, But Not Quite Ready For Production
You didn't have enough RAM. To use deduplication on ZFS without a massive performance hit requires assloads of RAM. 8 GB is nothing to ZFS with dedup on unless your disks are tiny. While Oracle claims less, the FreeBSD guys have found you need at least 5 GB per TB of disk just for dedup, plus more for cache and the rest of the OS. Do the math and any reasonably big storage pool will need tonnes of RAM.

Comment: Re:Hope it's going in the new Mac Pro (Score 5, Informative) 176

by washu_k (#43208879) Attached to: Next-Gen Intel Chip Brings Big Gains For Floating-Point Apps

The Core i7's are consumer-grade processors and are slower than the Xeon's the Mac Pros use

This is completely incorrect. The current Mac Pros use Nehalem based Xeons which are two generations back from the current Ivy Bridge i7s. Xeons may have differences in core count, cache and/or ECC support but their execution units are the same as their desktop equivalents. The base Mac Pro CPU is equivalent to an i7-960 with ECC support. The current Ivy Bridge i7s are a fair bit faster.

Comment: Re:Java and flash... (Score 1, Insightful) 97

by washu_k (#43192447) Attached to: Apple Nabs Java Exploit That Bypassed Disabled Plugin

All other operation systems running on similar hardware but having strict security and privileges proof you wrong. Even Linux existed at that time already and ran happily on that hardware.

No, he is completely correct. Linux of the time did not "run happily" on that hardware with the same level of GUI complexity as Win9x. Either Linux had no GUI at all, or a simple window manager like TWM or FVWM.

This is also doubly wrong in claiming that all other operating systems at the time had proper security. The biggest competitors to MS at the time were even simpler and less secure OSes. For GUIs there was MacOS which didn't have protected memory and could barely multitask, along with having no security model. On the server side the biggest at the time would have been Novell, which did have a security model, but still had no protected memory and much simpler multitasking than even Win9x.

Comment: Re:Applets disabled (Score 2) 201

by washu_k (#42623017) Attached to: The status of Java on my machine:
I'm a satisfied CrashPlan customer too, but it most certainly is bloated. For what it does it's memory usage is insane. The service is currently using 900 MB of RAM on my system just idling, plus another 200 MB for the interface. I've had cases where I've had to edit its config files to allow it to use even more memory and Google shows I'm far from the only one.

It's also extremely slow. It will often backup at only 20-40 mbit/sec locally on my gig lan. I know it encrypts files, but my i7 can perform the same encryption in other programs at least an order of magnitude faster. Yes, I have allowed it to use more CPU power.

While there isn't anything that works as well, there are tonnes of programs that do similar things to CrashPlan with a fraction of the resource usage.

Comment: Re:Heh (Score 2) 348

by washu_k (#42378105) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Do You Test Your New Hard Drives?
Running spinrite against an SSD is one of the clearest ways of showing that it is complete BS. It will report all sorts of things about the drive that are clearly impossible. It won't error or give no data, it clearly makes things up about the drive.

Another good BS test for spinrite is to run it against a non-ATA drive that is still BIOS accessible. A booted USB flash drive is the best, but something like a modern SCSI/SAS controller works as well. It's clearly impossible for spinrite to access such a device directly, yet it still reports all sorts of things it simply could not see. No errors or blank data, it again makes shit up and displays it.

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.