0 users browsing Discussion. | 1 guest | 9 bots
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-10-20, 06:46
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #741 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 65 days Last view: 2 days |
Shockingly, while there's several threads dedicated to SPECIFIC pieces of bullcrap, I can't find a general catch-all thread. So here we go. Today, I hooked up a DisplayPort->VGA adapter to my computer. Because I'm using an LCD TV as a monitor. The TV has HDMI inputs. My computer has HDMI outputs. Why would I want to use VGA? I'M GLAD YOU ASKED! It turns out my TV is stupid. It supports 4:4:4 chroma subsampling(AKA no subsampling, AKA actual full resolution), but steadfastly refuses to believe this is possible over HDMI. It will tell the computer it can do it. It will allow the computer to send it in. It will silently slaughter the color resolution before piping it through to the LCD panel. Some people have managed to make this crap work on their TVs by using HDMI->DVI adapters, or disabling their video adapter's sound subsystem(I guess that makes it more of a multimedia adapter than a video adapter?), or even just labeling the input "PC" or "Computer" in the TV's menu. None of these worked for me. According to my research, the only reliable way to make it happen on the display I'm using is to convert the digital image generated by my video card into an analog video stream so the television can RE-digitize it for display. But it DOES work. With one tiny piddling insignificant caveat. Since I'm not using any sort of digital connection, HDCP doesn't work. I can't use streaming services without switching back to HDMI and losing half my color resolution. ... Well, in my spot test, I CAN, but only in "standard definition". MPAA is apparently afraid I'll plug in a DVHS recorder and copy movies, but doesn't care if I use a regular VHS deck. If I actually used these services, it'd be a good argument for piracy. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-10-20, 07:22
|
|
Post: #99 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 157 days Last view: 28 days |
Having to pay for a Windows license, then having to spend several hours getting that system to run with several driver installations, reboots and forced updates. Remind me why we pay money for that shit again? |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-10-20, 07:54
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #742 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 65 days Last view: 2 days |
Because somehow everything else is worse? --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-10-20, 10:28
|
|
Dinosaur
 Post: #576 of 1317 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1 day Last view: 5 hours |
Minimalist UIs and web browsers. 'Nuff said. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Braintrash |
Posted on 19-10-20, 11:00
|
|
Post: #16 of 20
Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1738 days Last view: 1624 days |
Posted by tomman Do you really need a Knight Rider dashboard on your browser just for fucking clicking on hyperlinks ? |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-10-20, 11:19
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #743 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 65 days Last view: 2 days |
Posted by BraintrashNo, but it helps. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Braintrash |
Posted on 19-10-20, 15:46
|
|
Post: #17 of 20
Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1738 days Last view: 1624 days |
Posted by CaptainJistuce Are you incapacitated or something? |
| Nicholas Steel |
Posted on 19-10-20, 21:09
|
|
Post: #291 of 426
Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 500 days Last view: 15 days |
Did you have a look at your TV's Service Menu? There may be an obvious setting in there to remedy the issue with HDMI. AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64 |
| wertigon |
Posted on 19-10-25, 13:12 (revision 1)
|
|
Post: #102 of 205
Since: 11-24-18 Last post: 157 days Last view: 28 days |
More bullcrap from a Windows environment; Just installed Visual Studio 2019 professional edition. It only ate 18 GB of my precious 120 GB boot drive (C++, .NET and Universal apps). Meanwhile my Linux build environment sans the project build folder is a whopping 9 GB in total. That's the entire OS minus my home directory. What the actual fricken heck is going on??? |
| funkyass |
Posted on 19-10-25, 20:40
|
|
Post: #100 of 202
Since: 11-01-18 Last post: 661 days Last view: 17 days |
the windows SDK itself needs 4GB. |
| nyanpasu64 |
Posted on 19-10-26, 02:20 (revision 1)
|
|
Post: #58 of 77
Since: 10-31-18 Last post: 1191 days Last view: 1118 days |
On Windows, the Qt SDK with precompiled libraries takes 4.5-5 gigabytes for MinGW, and 450-600MB for MSVC2017... why? |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-10-26, 03:20
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #659 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1765 days Last view: 1763 days |
Ceremonial reasons. If it's not big then how can it be serious software? Meanwhile, vim clocks in at 2.4M and clang at 33M, for a grand total of 0.0354 GB. But I guess that's not enterprise certified. Why are you installing Visual Studio anyway though? That shit should be on your work machine and the responsibility of the IT technicians. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-10-26, 04:41
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #747 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 65 days Last view: 2 days |
Yeah, but vim is objectively terrible. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| funkyass |
Posted on 19-10-26, 06:17
|
|
Post: #101 of 202
Since: 11-01-18 Last post: 661 days Last view: 17 days |
Posted by jimbo1qaz Most of that is the pre-compiled binaries... like for every c file and the macro nightmare. It also depends what the install options for VS are. |
| nyanpasu64 |
Posted on 19-10-26, 11:07 (revision 1)
|
|
Post: #59 of 77
Since: 10-31-18 Last post: 1191 days Last view: 1118 days |
Posted by funkyass If I check "Sources", the installer says it'll take up 2.21 GB. I'm more concerned why Qt's MinGW libraries/headers take up an order of magnitude more than Qt's MSVC libraries/headers do. Should I file a Qt bug? Install MinGW and see what files take up space? |
| funkyass |
Posted on 19-10-26, 17:20
|
|
Post: #103 of 202
Since: 11-01-18 Last post: 661 days Last view: 17 days |
never having messed with qt and mingw together... do they need an x-server to run? |
| nyanpasu64 |
Posted on 19-10-27, 01:19
|
|
Post: #60 of 77
Since: 10-31-18 Last post: 1191 days Last view: 1118 days |
so I installed qt mingw and took a screenshot in SpaceSniffer: https://uc0b7db4571c154768201fd670cc.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/cd/0/inline/ArPRyPapTjs5Yg7BSEs0b6X_nfGLUPFiaokpnYfIWtgc6eqN5hEOT2PQPt5rV-H9xo2kMC8tDjoHDiU1BzTacWZ54Cee08fLFmmcysjxfg5CNrwKT9RmD0rYjrSTQOAp39M/file I would've prefered a tree view, but whatever... I think the issue is that Qt's MinGW (right of image) has debug DLLs like "Qt5Cored.dll" with enormous file sizes, whereas the equivalent debug DLLs in MSVC are small. I think Qt5Guid.dll is (Qt5, Gui, debug) and not (Qt5, GUID) as in UUID. |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-10-27, 01:20
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #580 of 1317 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1 day Last view: 5 hours |
Reminds me last time I tried building Qt from source: it was like in 2010 or so, I was still clinging to some ancient Fedora Core 6, and no way in hell I was going to upgrade. (It was to build bsnes back then, mind you!) ...it required 4GB of free space, and a prayer. And smashing a Nokia cellphone into tiny bits. Related: why in the hell TeX and friends involve installing gigabytes of junk just to build some random package documentation files from source? This is why I'm not building my own VirtualBox .debs from source. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| BearOso |
Posted on 19-10-27, 02:52
|
 Post: #121 of 175 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1452 days Last view: 1452 days |
The mingw libraries are probably statically linked with the mingw runtimes, whereas the msvc libraries can assume the runtimes are going to be there and dynamically link them. The debug libs are including all the statically linked debug symbols, too, so they’re huge. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-10-27, 04:47
|
|
Full mod
 Post: #359 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1103 days Last view: 174 days |
Posted by tomman I think this is one of those unfortunate path-dependent things. TeX itself is rather small, but it supports macros, and people wrote macros for all kinds of crazy and useful things. Back before reliable, high-speed internet access was widespread, people still wanted all the useful macros and fonts and other addons, so "TeX distributions" competed for who could bundle the most and most-useful stuff. Later on, when software documentation needed to be written, it was often written in TeX because that was the technical-writing system people were familiar with. Even later, when users wanted "online" documentation as well as books on shelves, people made documentation systems like TeXinfo and Sphinx that would take a master document and render it to multiple backends, including TeX. Even if you don't particularly want a 700-page manual on your shelf, or even a PDF version of the manual (because you've got a nice, searchable HTML version), the documentation tool you use probably has a TeX backend, and so there's a dependency, and so a simple task like "convert this lightweight markup file to a man page" involves downloading gigabytes of TeX that will never be used. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
