For Grind

oh lord....not one of these...

my computer sci major friend who is in the biz would kill you both by proclaiming the greatness of linux....i don't even talk to him about computers OS's anymore.....if he brings it up, i start saying latin sayings that relate to medievel law
 
Yurt said:
oh lord....not one of these...

my computer sci major friend who is in the biz would kill you both by proclaiming the greatness of linux....i don't even talk to him about computers OS's anymore.....if he brings it up, i start saying latin sayings that relate to medievel law
Click to expand...

Linux is great. You can do anything with it, as long as you have 100 hours of free time to manually fix all the bugs in the source code yourself, figures out how to actually install the shit, compile the program, make your mouse start working again, etc... etc...
 
no-BAMA! said:
Linux is great. You can do anything with it, as long as you have 100 hours of free time to manually fix all the bugs in the source code yourself, figures out how to actually install the shit, compile the program, make your mouse start working again, etc... etc...
Click to expand...

he doesn't need hundreds of hours....he already knows.....

you must die
 
no-BAMA! said:
He already knows due to millions of hours.
Click to expand...

so fucking what.....he would say that his college was computer sci....mine was not and yours is not.....you could have chosen, but you didn't....

just like those who choose between windows and mac.....we chose not to be him, we chose an OS that has the ability that WE can use to our advantage.....and our limited knowledge of computers....

he actually makes a good point....think about it
 
Yurt said:
so fucking what.....he would say that his college was computer sci....mine was not and yours is not.....you could have chosen, but you didn't....

just like those who choose between windows and mac.....we chose not to be him, we chose an OS that has the ability that WE can use to our advantage.....and our limited knowledge of computers....

he actually makes a good point....think about it
Click to expand...

I've used Linux before. Unusable. Not worth it.
 
no-BAMA! said:
I've used Linux before. Unusable. Not worth it.
Click to expand...

well...as you said.....you didn't spend the MILLION hours on it....

i hate it too....but to say you've "used" it before after you already said you have to spend a million hours, eg., time learing it, is a bit weak and a bit of a cop out.....

i like my stance better:

um...yeah....i didn't take comp sci, you did C rad....pencil pocket, want to talk latin phrases that can convince a jury or a judge to give you money?

its a different world WM....that is why i laugh at people who get into wars over OS systems.....you and i don't know squat compared to people like him and for us to think we are all that, silly.....

let me ask you......why do you like windows over mac?
 
Yurt said:
well...as you said.....you didn't spend the MILLION hours on it....

i hate it too....but to say you've "used" it before after you already said you have to spend a million hours, eg., time learing it, is a bit weak and a bit of a cop out.....

i like my stance better:

um...yeah....i didn't take comp sci, you did C rad....pencil pocket, want to talk latin phrases that can convince a jury or a judge to give you money?

its a different world WM....that is why i laugh at people who get into wars over OS systems.....you and i don't know squat compared to people like him and for us to think we are all that, silly.....

let me ask you......why do you like windows over mac?
Click to expand...

I don't really like Windows, I just hate Mac. And I'm getting a degree in Software Engineering, which is comp. sci + engineering classes. They don't teach linux there. It's something you learn yourself.
 
no-BAMA! said:
I don't really like Windows, I just hate Mac. And I'm getting a degree in Software Engineering, which is comp. sci + engineering classes. They don't teach linux there. It's something you learn yourself.
Click to expand...

hate to break it to you.....but that is similar to his degree....and no, they never taught linux in class.....he did it all on his own....it is understanding of the computer that drove him outside of confined classrooms....

before dual processors....he had dual motherboards....as far back as 97'....if my memory serves me right.....
 
Yurt said:
hate to break it to you.....but that is similar to his degree....and no, they never taught linux in class.....he did it all on his own....it is understanding of the computer that drove him outside of confined classrooms....

before dual processors....he had dual motherboards....as far back as 97'....if my memory serves me right.....
Click to expand...

We've always had dual processors, it's just recently that CPU companies have started pushing dual-core processors. Mainly because they have reached a limiting wall in most other aspects of processor design. But they were never any much use for anything other than servers back then, because programs have to be specifically designed to take advantage of the two cores. It's pretty much the last thing you'd turn to to boost performance because you lose backward compatibility (for the speed increases) on the software side.

I'm not sure what you mean by dual motherboards though.
 
Last edited:
no-BAMA! said:
We've always had dual processors, it's just recently that CPU companies have started pushing dual-core processors. Mainly because they have reached a limiting wall in most other aspects of processor design. But they were never any much use for anything other than servers back then, because programs have to be specifically designed to take advantage of the two cores. It's pretty much the last thing you'd turn to to boost performance because you lose backward compatibility (for the speed increases) on the software side.

I'm not sure what you mean by dual motherboards though.
Click to expand...

Its the motherload.
 
no-BAMA! said:
We've always had dual processors, it's just recently that CPU companies have started pushing dual-core processors. Mainly because they have reached a limiting wall in most other aspects of processor design. But they were never any much use for anything other than servers back then, because programs have to be specifically designed to take advantage of the two cores. It's pretty much the last thing you'd turn to to boost performance because you lose backward compatibility (for the speed increases) on the software side.

I'm not sure what you mean by dual motherboards though.
Click to expand...

as you said, cpu's did not come with dual processors...as such, the motherboards did not support dual processors, so in order to get two cores, you needed two motherboards
 
They had dual CPU motherboards in 1997.

Xeon has always had support for dual CPU motherboards. Intel artificially restricted the sale of dual CPU motherboards for other processors around 1998, though, because some servers were getting two Celerons for 200 bucks and putting them in a single motherboard and getting the same performance as a $1000 Xeon.
 
i don't know why he did it then....i thought those boards came out around 2000....

maybe it was cheaper....he was also running linux and one of his computers he had linux on one processor and windows on the other

all i remember is the computer geeks raving about dual motherboards...its possible that he meant a motherboard with dual processor slots....but i thought he told me he actually had two motherboards in one computer
 
Two processor systems back in the day didn't give you much boost with windows. One of the chips was solely used to push the data through the other chip. It was only when you had three or more that you saw any significant improvement, one was still used to push data, but it now did it efficiently through more than one chip separating out processes between the two (or more) chips very well.
 
Damocles said:
Two processor systems back in the day didn't give you much boost with windows. One of the chips was solely used to push the data through the other chip. It was only when you had three or more that you saw any significant improvement, one was still used to push data, but it now did it efficiently through more than one chip separating out processes between the two (or more) chips very well.
Click to expand...

Even on NT?

And I assume that Linux had fixed that flaw long before Windows touched it?

Like I said, before very recently multiple-processors was something that was really only of interest to people running servers.
 
no-BAMA! said:
Even on NT?

And I assume that Linux had fixed that flaw long before Windows touched it?

Like I said, before very recently multiple-processors was something that was really only of interest to people running servers.
Click to expand...
Yes, even on NT. In fact when I was learning about it was when NT 4.0 was the shizmet. And Linux still only partially used one of the processors, and when there were more it was less efficient. Both OS have fixed those issues and are efficient with multi processor systems now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top