Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-09, 23:51 in Board feature requests/suggestions
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #441 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by KawaIf it ain't broken, improve it 'til it is. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-10, 00:33 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #442 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
I expected more ranting about Shamalama and less ranting about Nick. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-10, 03:09 in Board feature requests/suggestions
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #443 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by Nicholas SteelWord. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-10, 04:26 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #444 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by KoiMaxxHe said the samurai used them. So it isn't that they don't work, just that the movies and cartoons don't understand HOW they work. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-10, 05:59 in SNES Hardware Revisions, continued
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #445 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by Nicholas SteelThere's the problem Your Nintendo has wildly out-of-spec timings --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-11, 05:43 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #446 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by KoiMaxxBIG BLACK BALLS! --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-12, 02:10 in Board feature requests/suggestions
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #447 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
It would reveal Kawa's high-level Illuminati connections. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-15, 07:27 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #448 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
https://youtu.be/to2SMng4u1k The climactic battle between Darth Vader and Ben Kenobi on the Death Star, redone to match the more dynamic and energetic style of the rest of the films. There's some neat things in there, and I actually like the callbacks to their fight in Revenge of the Sith. I know, I'm as surprised as you. They sample some of that film's dialog to remind audiences of the two's history and the weight this fight carries(a history the original film couldn't reference because it didn't yet exist). Similarly, the use of flames and red light echos the volcano battle. And, of course, it is a cool lightsaber duel. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-15, 12:43 in Your daily dose of processor unit vulnerabilities
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #449 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by tomman Intel stopped caring too. That's the problem. Hyper-threading is about getting more from what you have, in the same way that out-of-order execution, pipelining, and branch prediction. More cores and hyper-threading are complementary, rather than contradictory. And it is frankly embarrassing that they disable hyper-threading on any of their products(just like so many other things they disable so they can charge a premium for something their entire product line is capable of). --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-16, 04:33 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #450 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
I think there were a few widescreen TVs at the high end, for home theater buffs. Definitely odd to see support in a game. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-16, 05:30 in Your daily dose of processor unit vulnerabilities (revision 1)
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #451 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by sureanem If this were like the 486 SX, I'd agree. Intel moved several years ago to gating off features and setting clockspeeds based on what they WANTED to sell rather than supply being restricted by yields. It is why you occasionally see a processor model that reliably overclocks by 100%. The reason it isn't being sold as a faster part is because Intel doesn't want there to be a larger supply of faster parts. Especially obvious with things like ECC RAM and hyper-threading. There's no hardware failure I can imagine that renders them unusable that doesn't also kill the rest of the processor. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-16, 07:20 in Computer Technology News/Discussion
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #452 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Honestly, the last XP patch looked like it only happened to get the camera so the media would listen when they said their spiel about state-level actors. I dunno on this one, it doesn't seem to be associated with any rant I can see. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-17, 06:07 in Your daily dose of processor unit vulnerabilities
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #453 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by sureanem "So it makes more sense to only manufacture a few types of CPUs, disable the parts that don't turn out so well, and then market them as different processor models based on what clock frequency, core count, etc they could sustain. Sure, you could argue this is immoral, but it's more efficient than trying to make all the different kinds of CPUs, throwing away some, and wasting enormous overclocking potential in some." It really sounds like that WAS what you're saying, but...
God help us all if this kind of rapacious and abusive behavior is considered a good thing now. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-17, 10:53 in Your daily dose of processor unit vulnerabilities
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #454 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by sureanem It is a shift in business model, it gets worse every year, and that R&D budget was CLEARLY not going to actually improving their product if the raft of Intel-exclusive vulnerabilities is any indication. They've boosted profits wildly over the last several years without actually offering improved products, and in fact with the pace of computer upgrades slowing greatly in part due to a lack of meaningful updates. ... I mean, if you want to defend a shift from "manufacturer shipping the best product we can at a competitive price" to "manufacturer shipping the worst product we think people will actually buy at the highest price we think people will tolerate", then okay. It isn't a stance I will ever agree with. ECC RAM disabling, of course, goes back to before the DRAM controller was even ON the processor. Intel worked hard to get everyone else out of the motherboard chipset business, then immediately turned around and started removing features from their chipsets and telling people it was an improvement because they were removing features people didn't need(except on the new server-grade chipsets that were suspiciously much more expensive despite being the same thing aside from those removed features still being present). Your analogy is also flawed, because I may be paying for software rather than media, but in the case of the processor, I am actually paying for the physical object. If you bought a car and it had a V8 engine under the hood, but the ECU only fired four cylinders... you'd be mad, right? That's what Intel is doing. Is that greedy, then? Umm,, yes? Have you SEEN the markup on Xeon processors? I mean, I know the memes about Intel, but what are they to do? They do have R&D costs, so unless the regulator forces them to sell at margin cost or they get nationalized not much will happen. Be happy you can still buy a CPU, even if they're not gracious enough to give you complete control over it. They aren't offsetting R&D costs, they are boosting profit margins. And I'm not going to thank them for throwing shit at my face just because they didn't actively force it down my throat. There's not any legitimate use for more computing power anyway, so people would just squander it on electron/mining crypto/making HTML5 even more retarded. Then they shouldn't have any R&D budget because there's nothing to develop. (also buttcoin is done on graphics cards or ASICs these days. No one digs for buttnuggets on CPU.) If this offends you, you can do absolutely nothing about it, because it's not feasible (unless you're Chinese) to catch up to Intel/AMD AMD AREN'T feature-gating, their processors AREN'T frequency-locked(and binned much more realistically in any case), and their profit margins are lower. I don't think that AMD actually respects its customers, but I think they aren't actively raping them in the ass with a railroad spike. I'm not sure why you would paint AMD and Intel with the same brush. In other words, it's absurd to complain about things being bad when you can tell from a mile away they'll get far, far worse. "Everything is terrible, and it is only going to get worse, so take it with a smile." Ummm, how about no? That's a terrible fucking attitude. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-17, 11:00 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #455 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by tommanThis made me poke at the good ol' reserved IPv4 blocks map. I see most of the old guard like GE and the universities were returned to the pool. ... Why does Apple have a /8 block? And why did they buy it in 1990, while they were otherwise engaged in simply not going bankrupt? --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-18, 04:44 in Your daily dose of processor unit vulnerabilities (revision 1)
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #456 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by sureanem If only profit margins, processor performance, and feature sets were publicly available data. Oh, wait... It is rather easy to confirm that having segmented markets for full-featured enterprise processors and kneecapped personal-use processors is a modern business practice that didn't even START until the Core line, and resulted in wildly larger profit margins(because businesses will buy what they need no matter the cost IF there isn't a lower-cost alternative). They tried to set up separate processors entirely, but the Itanium was a flop, and the Pentium 4 was a hilarious trainwreck(in part due to poor engineering, in part due to Intel proclaiming that enthusiasts didn't need 64-bit while AMD was offering 64-bit processors to enthusiasts). So Intel licensed AMD64 from AMD. And once they recovered their footing(mostly because Bulldozer was a mistake), they started feature-gating the Core line. I mean, if you want to defend a shift from "manufacturer shipping the best product we can at a competitive price" to "manufacturer shipping the worst product we think people will actually buy at the highest price we think people will tolerate", then okay. It isn't a stance I will ever agree with. So every processor from the 486 onward has made a mistake by integrating the FPU? At the time, it was a niche feature that normal users didn't need. There was some annoyance that people who were only going to need integer performance were being forced to pay for a FP coprocessor. ONCE IT WAS AVAILABLE, it started seeing widespread usage because, hey, it turns out that it wasn't that useless after all.
It is market segregatoin that largely did not exist before the Core series, and didn't exist AT ALL before the Pentium Pro. The PPro had the excuse of being genuinely expensive to manufacture. The Pentium 2 started the trend of ARTIFICIAL market segmentation, where you disable features on most of your parts so that you can charge a premium for the ones that allow access to those parts. This is not much different to Nvidia and their Quadro cards. The Quadro cards are just more expensive for no real reason, because the people who buy them have infinity money, and wouldn't ever dare hack something together out of reflashed warranty voided cards. Actually, you traditionally gain much better warranty terms and support in exchange for the Quadro prices. Though nVidia started feature-gating once businesses started becoming more concerned with the price than the support. And now they flat-out include usage restrictions in the driver license so you legally CAN'T use cheaper enthusiast cards in a business or research setting REGARDLESS of the performance and feature set. That's just the way it is.But not the way it always was, or the way it has to be. For regular consumer processors, prices are still normal.Individuals just get less for their dollar than they used to(and businesses get MUCH less). I don't agree with you on that. You can buy a silicon wafer for next to nothing, what you're paying for is Intel's monopoly on the IP needed to manufacture one of whatever processor it is you have.I'm paying Intel to manufacture a processor, and I'm willing to pay more for a part that is actually harder to make. But when Intel tells me I should pay more not because it is harder, but because they want a wider profit margin, I get upset. AMD would if they could, I'd reckon. AMD did sell locked CPUs in the past, they just didn't do it for Ryzen. Even when they were ruling the roost, they binned processors honestly(easy enough to test given that their processors were easy to unlock during their dominance), and didn't gate features. If AMD ever gets ahead of Intel, presumably the sides would switch and Intel would be selling cheaper unlocked processors. And then we would be talking about how AMD is greedy and how we should all buy Intel instead, or something like that. If AMD ever gets close to ahead of Intel, Intel will ease up on their bullshit. We've already seen that as Zen has proven damaging to their sales and they've responded by offering better products at lower prices. Hooray for some fucking competition.
I'm not crying over spilt milk, I'm raging over the fact that no one's standing the jug up before the rest of it dumps out on the floor. Things CAN be done. But whatever. You're actually the enemy. This "take it and be happy because you are powerless" attitude is why things have gotten as bad as they have. I'm wasting time I could spend on literally anything else arguing with either a corporate shill or a consumer whore. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-18, 04:46 in Bsnes v.107.1 release: is it possible to use shaders?
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #457 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by legolas119Higan 106, not 1.06. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-19, 06:52 in I have yet to have never seen it all.
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #458 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by KawaThe PS1 was kinda bad at everything. But it was simple and cheap. :P --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-20, 00:34 in Cartoons, imported
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #459 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
I remember Robot Carnival! Also, 1987. Genuine 80s art style, not retro. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-20, 23:57 in PSA: The kilogram has been redefined
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #460 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 8 hours |
Posted by funkyassAwkward and clumsy ratios chosen to avoid actually changing anything, which flies in the face of the original intent of the system(which was, admittedly, "let's break everything just to be different!". The french revolution was a fun time.). --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
