Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Why they said "maintaining maximum compatibilit (Score 1) 585

Wow, That is complete marketing bullshit. The only way it makes sense is if those were two separate sentences.

"This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon, while maintaining maximum reliability" -- No Win10, no shiny CPU for you.
"compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon" -- non-shiny CPUs continue to work with Win10.

Comment Re:Just wanted to say "thank you" (Score 1) 110

I don't have an ISO because this is an upgraded system from Win8. I don't know what your point is, or if you even have one. But it doesn't take a genius to disprove the GP's absurd claims. If you understand basic OS architecture, you'd know that the hard limit on the number of threads is the size of the stack (approximately, because you have other associated bookkeeping data structuresm but they are usually very tiny) , which ultimately means you're limited by the physical memory, paged pool and virtual memory. So creating 100,000 or even 200,000 threads is not a big deal. Threads are the "basic unit" of work in the NT design. Now as far as the scheduler goes, threads have discrete priority levels, thread quantums, as well as numerous strategies like temporary bumps and downgrades in priority/quantum lengths (esp on desktop workloads) so that for e.g. the UI threads dont get starved. (The balance set manager prevents priority inversion) So not only can you schedule a large number of threads, you can do so without locking up the system. Obviously this is a simplistic explanation but it was part of the NT kernel's original design 20 years ago. The idea that NT can't schedule a measly 2000 threads is not really tenable (with the caveat that you have enough memory for the stacks). Since then there have obviously been lots of additions like NUMA support to schedule threads optimally per-processor, etc, etc, etc

Comment Re: Why can't we leave it alone (Score 1) 151

There isn't one. For any small entity, funding the production of a generic item that works in every case is not possible in most situations. And that's not a bad thing, necessarily. It fosters alternatives. Why is software development special than say.. a small tire manufacturer unable to make a snow tire for every SUV or a small smartphone case manufacturer unable to make cases for every kind of phone, etc etc. Monoculture often produces strong network effects that aren't always pleasant. But like anything else, you could find certain exceptions. Certainly, having agreed-upon ways to store data or other inter-op protocols/services can be beneficial, etc. But I don't agree that we need a single development platform. This forces the feature-set to be this abstract commonality between wildly different OSs. Historically this has always produces platforms that totally suck, are inefficient (simply owning to the fact that abstraction always has a cost) and are resistant to innovation because of the forced requirement of compatibility.

Comment Re:MS Spyware (Score 1) 421

Do you think that "debug performance telemetry" should be in a mission critical embedded application build in release mode? Do you?

Did you also throw a hissy fit when they added dtrace to the kernel? Did you?

I await your answer.

You people are really dumb. I mean, I get it, you're clearly an anti-ms troll and a Linux cheerleader, but you should know when you're getting fucked and when you're just masturbating.

Comment Re:Legacy Application Support? (Score 1) 260

also, if a MBA wants to shoot their company in the foot, the company should do something about it. if all the MBAs in the company wan to shoot their company in the foot, that's darwinism.

You might find it hard to convince a successful business that they were wrong to go with closed source software, or not pay extra money for the source code.

Comment Re:Well duh. (Score 1) 519

Yeah yeah yeah, all those things look good on some power-point slides. Knowing how shitty human programmers are, and given that the company driving this is Google, which is known to release constant patches to fix bugs in their products. Their crowning achievement, algorithmic data mining/analysis is so terrible that it can't even prevent outright fraudulent and spammy links from showing up in search results. I hear this awesome algorithm is worth "billions". Hell they practically invented the browser-bug-patch treadmill.

So yeah, you'll have to excuse us for not being thrilled at the possibility of a computer algorithm being more accurate than a human. The reality is you're going to have some shitty phone-home internet-of-things type shit-show where you have to reboot your car in order to get to work on time. And this is right after you insert your credit card to download the new CarOS 2.3 which will eventually overload the shitty ass under-powered CPU that they choose to use in order to save $5.40 on the BOM.

Slashdot Top Deals

The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.