Quad core or i7? And homebuilt PC forums

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

Rod Speed wrote

You don't think they just find you entertaining?

Clearly they dont when the site is nothing but a personal attack and is
clearly the result of them getting ****ed over very comprehensively indeed.

Maybe they also think others will find the site informative or historically interesting

Have fun explaining that fact that every single one was ****ed
over very comprehensively indeed before they did their web site.

- you are, after all, in a class of your own in Usenet history.

Not just usenet either.

Ah, here we have an example of your disconnection with the rest of society.

Only in your pathetic little childish fantasyland.

Feeling bad about having accidentally insulted someone is not a "problem" - it's called *empathy*.

Its actually called mindlessly wanking, child.

It's something us socially concious humans

Wota ****ing wanker...

think of as a good thing.

Wota ****ing wanker...

Kill files are used to avoid time-wasting.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

If that was the reason why they were used, there
would be no reason to announce what is in them.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
they do work even if your dont announce what is in them.

When you announce what is in them, it clearly aint about avoiding time wasting, fool.

You've been in Usenet (and BBS's before that) for twenty years and you don't understand that?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

That, I believe, makes my point quite nicely.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Again re-enforcing my believe that your insults are random and perhaps even automated.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Indeed, you are a character of some fame.

Eat your silly little heart out, child.

I'm not sure it's something to be proud of, given that almost everything said about you is negative,

Another bare faced lie.

but it's an achievement of sorts. Some people like to leave their little mark in the world by bringing up a family or
doing
their job well. Others like to leave a bigger mark by excelling at sport or publishing popular books. And some
people aspire to fame as the most hated person in Usenet history.

Another bare faced lie.

Each to his own, I suppose.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

YKhan wrote

I absolutely agree that "most people" will never open their computer
in the first place. But most of those who *do* open it to add more
disk space will add a second disk, not replace the first one.

Wrong, as always.

In fact, "most people" who run low on disk space will do one of three things. They will add an external USB hard disk
(that's probably the most likely these days),

Wrong, as always. Most just replace the system.

they will take their PC to a local computer shop for a new hard disk (and you can practically guarantee that this will
be in addition to the original one, not a replacement),

Wrong, as always.

or they will buy a new computer.

And that is by far the most common approach. You got the order wrong, as always.

I don't think that's the case any more

Wrong, as always.

- people are used to plugging in flash disks, and understand that the data is on a different disk.

Wrong, as always.

I have seldom seen mounted folders in use on windows systems, even by experts. I think it is more a cultural
difference between typical
Linux users and typical Windows users, combined with the historical
limitations of Windows. Many of today's windows experts learned to
use windows before windows mounted folders or junction points existed.

Irrelevant. Anyone with even half a clue uses what becomes available when its useful.

Again, this is all /relative/.

Wrong, as always.

I am not saying it is common for "most people" to add a second hard drive - just that it is /more/ common for
them to do so than to replace the boot drive.

Wrong, as always.

And we are talking about individual users here (home users or small companies), of course. In a large installation,
data will invariably be stored on centralised servers

Wrong, as always.

so disk space on workstations is almost never an issue

Wrong, as always.

- and if it is, it's time to replace the workstation.

Wrong, as always.

I came across this link while reading about EFI:
<http://archive.fosdem.org/2007/interview/ronald+g+minnich>

(LinuxBIOS is the old name for what is now coreboot).

I don't know what is actually done in practice, but there is no doubt
that manufacturers could use EFI to limit booting to specific OS's.

Wrong, as always.

There is also no doubt that there are "forces" that want to restrict people's choices and uses of software on
computers - MS would love a bios system that would only boot Windows systems, if they thought they could get away with
it.

Pity they dont write bios.

And the Mickey Mouse crew would love the idea of restricting computers to known OS's that could again restrict
software to known programs - it would make it so much easier to enforce their "rights".

Pity they dont write bios either.

Of course, this is all about "trusted" computing to protect users from viruses, malware, and inferior quality copied
media.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

EFI is, of course, not the only way to achieve such lockdowns.

There are no lockdowns.

But it certainly makes them technically much easier than with traditional bioses.

Pity they dont write bios.

And the ability to misuse EFI does not make the technology itself bad.

I think the main issue with the EFI is simply that it is unnecessary - it is way too big and complex.

Your problem.

A replacement for traditional bioses should really be much simpler, since there is not much it has to do before
starting the OS.

You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

coreboot is the option I know a little about - it's basically a specialized Linux system.

And Linux has never ever amounted to a hill of beans in the real world.

In some environments, such as large clusters and HPC, it is very popular - it makes booting and updating
systems hugely faster than a traditional (or EFI) bios.

Irrelevant to what happens with desktop PCs.

Other than that, I can think of no reason why current BIOS developers can't simply add GPT support to their existing
software.

Why bother ?

 

[David Brown]

David Brown wrote


Clearly they dont when the site is nothing but a personal attack and is
clearly the result of them getting ****ed over very comprehensively indeed.


Have fun explaining that fact that every single one was ****ed
over very comprehensively indeed before they did their web site.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "****ed over very
comprehensively indeed". I would normally take that to mean that you
have somehow hurt the feelings of the people in question, or perhaps
that you had thoroughly beaten them in an online debate and publicly
humiliated them. Perhaps you mean something totally different. For
example, do you see your posts to me as "****ing me over
comprehensively"? That would give me some context.

<snip>

 

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "****ed over very
comprehensively indeed". I would normally take that to mean that you
have somehow hurt the feelings of the people in question, or perhaps
that you had thoroughly beaten them in an online debate and publicly
humiliated them.

Obviously the latter.

Perhaps you mean something totally different.
Nope.

For example, do you see your posts to me as "****ing me over comprehensively"?
Nope.

That would give me some context.

Even you should be able to use groups.google and work it out for yourself.

 

[JR Weiss]

You don't think they just find you entertaining? Maybe they also
think others will find the site informative or historically
interesting - you are, after all, in a class of your own in Usenet
history.

.. . .

Now you're just feeding the troll... He LIVES to draw people into
useless debates/discussions like this -- useless because as soon as he
perceives the other person is "winning," he changes the subject or
(most often) resorts to profanity.

Engage him if you want, but it's a complete waste of time...

 

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

Rod Speed wrote

You don't think they just find you entertaining?

Dont you 'think' that its actually the proof of how
comprehensively they have been done over ?

Killfiles are just a variation on the other approach, what little kids do,
put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, chant 'nyah, nyah, cant
hear ya'. Presumably you actually are so stupid that you cant see that.

My rather gung ho style is in fact a very effective way of
sorting out the fools from those who do actually have a clue.

Three guesses where that has left you ?

 

[David Brown]

David Brown wrote


Obviously the latter.


Even you should be able to use groups.google and work it out for yourself.

I'm going to take that to mean that you think you have "thoroughly
beaten me in an online debate, and publicly humiliated me". Of course,
*I* don't think that, nor does anyone else - and I think (judging from
posts here in recent times) the same thing applies to most of your other
"victims".

People win or lose debates by logical arguments, not by swearing and
insults. And "public humiliation" means that lots of people mock or
laugh at the target. In this group, I've only noticed one poster who is
regularly mocked by others - and it's not me. (Although I expect that
sooner or later I /will/ be mocked by others for carrying on these threads.)

 

[David Brown]

David Brown wrote


Dont you 'think' that its actually the proof of how
comprehensively they have been done over ?

Killfiles are just a variation on the other approach, what little kids do,
put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, chant 'nyah, nyah, cant
hear ya'. Presumably you actually are so stupid that you cant see that.

Killfiles are a variation on simply leaving the room and ignoring the
person they find annoying. The "fingers in the ears" analogy is a very
much closer match to rodbot replies.

My rather gung ho style is in fact a very effective way of
sorting out the fools from those who do actually have a clue.

In the sense that it makes people think /you/ are a fool without a clue,
then yes, I suppose it /is/ effective.

 

[Rod Speed]

I'm going to take that to mean that you think you have "thoroughly
beaten me in an online debate, and publicly humiliated me".

I actually said the exact opposite of that. Have a look at that nope just above.

Of course, *I* don't think that, nor does anyone else

You have no way of knowing what everyone else thinks.

- and I think (judging from posts here in recent times) the same thing applies to most of your other "victims".

That is a clear lie on that anyone else. Even you should have noticed
the comments John Turco made about partitioning vs folder trees.

People win or lose debates

Its never about win or lose, child.

by logical arguments,

And that is what every single one of them got, child.

not by swearing and insults.

You're lying now when you are implying that there is nothing but swearing and insults.

And "public humiliation" means that lots of people mock or laugh at the target.

Wrong again. And it was you that used that term anyway, not me.

In this group, I've only noticed one poster who
is regularly mocked by others - and it's not me.

And you're so stupid and such a newbie in here that you
arent even aware of what has happened with those clowns.
still deperately licking their wounds after all this time.

(Although I expect that sooner or later I /will/ be mocked by others for carrying on these threads.)

You wouldnt know what real mocking was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

David Brown wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Killfiles are a variation on simply leaving the room and ignoring the person they find annoying.

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

If thats what is being done THERE WOULD BE NO NEED
TO ANNOUNCE WHAT IS IN THE KILLFILE, CHILD.

The "fingers in the ears" analogy is a very much closer match to rodbot replies.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

In the sense that it makes people think /you/ are a fool without a clue,

Only fools do that.

 

[YKhan]

I absolutely agree that "most people" will never open their computer in
the first place.  But most of those who *do* open it to add more disk
space will add a second disk, not replace the first one.

I guess for those /most people/ who can even figure out how to open
their machines up, let alone install things into it, can be safely
thought of as having graduated to the ranks of /experts/. They used to
be common in the early days of the PC, not anymore.

In fact, "most people" who run low on disk space will do one of three
things.  They will add an external USB hard disk (that's probably the
most likely these days), they will take their PC to a local computer
shop for a new hard disk (and you can practically guarantee that this
will be in addition to the original one, not a replacement), or they
will buy a new computer.

Yeah, that's the typical thing these days, although I don't see the
"take PC to local computer shop for new internal hard drive" being all
that common anymore these days. However, I do think USB hard drives
and changing the whole computer to be quite likely.

I don't think that's the case any more - people are used to plugging in
flash disks, and understand that the data is on a different disk.

You'd be surprised how little knowledge there is about changing drives
out there. The only reason they can use the flash disks is because
there is usually a Windows auto-run notification window that pops up.
If they can't get the auto-run notification then they'll just unplug
the drive from the USB until they do get the notification, or give up
and think there is something wrong with the drive. They'd never be
able to go to "My Computer" and pick the drive from the list. And
let's not even begin about going to the command-prompt and changing
drive letters there.

I have seldom seen mounted folders in use on windows systems, even by
experts.  I think it is more a cultural difference between typical Linux
users and typical Windows users, combined with the historical
limitations of Windows.  Many of today's windows experts learned to use
windows before windows mounted folders or junction points existed.

Yeah, it is a DOS/Windows cultural thing. Nobody who hasn't dealt with
a Unix environment is really used to considering drive to be
equivalent to a folder. Too set in one's own ways.

I came across this link while reading about EFI:
<http://archive.fosdem.org/2007/interview/ronald+g+minnich>

(LinuxBIOS is the old name for what is now coreboot).

Oh, okay, I had heard about LinuxBIOS, but not coreboot.

I don't know what is actually done in practice, but there is no doubt
that manufacturers could use EFI to limit booting to specific OS's.
There is also no doubt that there are "forces" that want to restrict
people's choices and uses of software on computers - MS would love a
bios system that would only boot Windows systems, if they thought they
could get away with it.  And the Mickey Mouse crew would love the idea
of restricting computers to known OS's that could again restrict
software to known programs - it would make it so much easier to enforce
their "rights".  Of course, this is all about "trusted" computing to
protect users from viruses, malware, and inferior quality copied media.

I doubt Microsoft would care, but I wouldn't rule out an outfit like
Dell doing such a thing. Dell could conceivably not only lock it down
to Windows in general, but it might even lock it down to a version of
Windows specifically (XP vs. Vista, etc.). This would be done simply
to limit their support costs and/or drive hardware sales, where a
specific version of Windows is the only Windows available for a
certain machine model. Upgrading to a newer Windows would be
impossible, unless Dell sells you either a patch to the EFI BIOS, or
more likely sells you a completely new machine.

I think the main issue with the EFI is simply that it is unnecessary -
it is way too big and complex.  A replacement for traditional bioses
should really be much simpler, since there is not much it has to do
before starting the OS.

It does seem a tad too complicated for a piece of software that will
always get put to sleep once the OS starts up.

coreboot is the option I know a little about - it's basically a
specialized Linux system.  In some environments, such as large clusters
and HPC, it is very popular - it makes booting and updating systems
hugely faster than a traditional (or EFI) bios.  Other than that, I can
think of no reason why current BIOS developers can't simply add GPT
support to their existing software.

In the Solaris world, there was a boot firmware system called
OpenBoot. I was always under the impression that it was "open" and
thus available to PC's to use too if they so pleased. I guess they
never bothered to look into that one.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Rod Speed]

YKhan wrote

I guess for those /most people/ who can even figure out how
to open their machines up, let alone install things into it, can be
safely thought of as having graduated to the ranks of /experts/.

Nope, not when they have to ask how to clone the single drive to a larger one.

They used to be common in the early days of the PC, not anymore.

They never were all that common.

Yeah, that's the typical thing these days, although I don't
see the "take PC to local computer shop for new internal
hard drive" being all that common anymore these days.

True, but thats because most dont run out of space anymore.

However, I do think USB hard drives and changing the whole computer to be quite likely.

They are indeed.

You'd be surprised how little knowledge there is about changing drives
out there. The only reason they can use the flash disks is because
there is usually a Windows auto-run notification window that pops up.
If they can't get the auto-run notification then they'll just unplug
the drive from the USB until they do get the notification, or give up
and think there is something wrong with the drive. They'd never be
able to go to "My Computer" and pick the drive from the list. And
let's not even begin about going to the command-prompt and changing
drive letters there.

Yeah, it is a DOS/Windows cultural thing. Nobody who hasn't dealt with a Unix
environment is really used to considering drive to be equivalent to a folder.

Cant agree with that.

Too set in one's own ways.

Not everyone is.

Oh, okay, I had heard about LinuxBIOS, but not coreboot.

I doubt Microsoft would care, but I wouldn't rule out an outfit like
Dell doing such a thing. Dell could conceivably not only lock it down
to Windows in general, but it might even lock it down to a version of
Windows specifically (XP vs. Vista, etc.). This would be done simply
to limit their support costs and/or drive hardware sales, where a
specific version of Windows is the only Windows available for a
certain machine model. Upgrading to a newer Windows would be
impossible, unless Dell sells you either a patch to the EFI BIOS,
or more likely sells you a completely new machine.

They wouldnt have maintenance manuals online if they were that bad.

It does seem a tad too complicated for a piece of software
that will always get put to sleep once the OS starts up.

But does avoid having keep redoing everything over time etc.

In the Solaris world, there was a boot firmware system called
OpenBoot. I was always under the impression that it was "open" and
thus available to PC's to use too if they so pleased. I guess they
never bothered to look into that one.

No point when Intel does something like EFI.

 

[Andrew Hamilton]

Andrew Hamilton wrote:

What you say here is entirely true, but my understanding was that the PC
in question was being bought and built now, with a view to possibly
upgrading in the future - thus support for large boot disks is not a big
issue here. But you are of course right that it will be an issue in the

Of course. I tend to "overbuild" my systems so that I can 4-5 years
out of them before I "want" to upgrade. In this case, I "need" to
upgrade to 64-bit and higher performance. But today's "higher
performance" may be tomorrow's file server, and I would want to up the
drive capacity considerably in the future.

future - probably forcing more systems over to EFI bioses.

So, the "money question." Can the BIOS in the Asus P6T Deluxe V2
board I buy today be flashed to an EFI BIOS, or is there some hardware
required that is simply not included on the P6T (or the X58 chipset.)

Thanks for the intelligent, to the point reply above.

-AH

 

[Andrew Hamilton]

Thus I believe it is much more common to add a second hard drive for
data than to replace the system drive.

Yes, but that depends on the size of the original C drive.

No, it will not become universal - there are several reasons to choose
something other than EFI (including unnecessary complexity,
compatibility issues, and security and freedom concerns - some people
are worried that the EFI may try to limit or lock the OS running on the
system, meaning the user can't use the OS of their choice). The EFI
will become more common, but certainly not "universal".

How does EFI actually do that?

Of course, alternatives for the future (such as newer traditional
BIOSes, CoreBoot, etc.) either support GPT now, or will no doubt do so
in the future.

Does P6T support GPT? That's what I really care about.

-AH

 

[Andrew Hamilton]

And Linux has never ever amounted to a hill of beans in the real world.


Irrelevant to what happens with desktop PCs.

Rod,

I used to read your posts with amusement, because you seem to have an
occasional clue somehow mixed in with all the childish vituperation.
But this comment shows that whatever else you may be, you are also
pretty clueless.

I'm in the software business, and I can tell you that Linux is a big,
damn deal. Big enough that Microsoft has spent bucks trying to prove
that Linux actually costs more in "TCO" than Windows. And they
wouldn't bother doing that if Linux wasn't important.

Just ask Sun. As Linux popularity has increased, Solaris has
decreased. Drastically. Linux may not have quite the elegance and
polish of Solaris, but it works well enough. And I can' remember the
last time my company still supported HP-UX. And IBM's AIX is also
dwindling.

So, go ahead, sprout more and more verbal diarrhea. Show everyone in
this group just how limited you are.

-AH

 

[Rod Speed]

Andrew Hamilton wrote

I used to read your posts with amusement, because you seem to have
an occasional clue somehow mixed in with all the childish vituperation.

I only put the boot into fools that try to bullshit their way out of
their predicament when I expose one of their stupiditys, politely.

You get to like that or lump it.

But this comment shows that whatever else you may be, you are also pretty clueless.

We'll see...

I'm in the software business, and I can tell you that Linux is a big, damn deal.

Pigs arse it is. Its never even managed to even get a double
digit percentage of the desktop market, and sweet **** all
desktop systems even come with it as an option.

Big enough that Microsoft has spent bucks trying to prove
that Linux actually costs more in "TCO" than Windows.

They have money to burn, ****wit.

And they wouldn't bother doing that if Linux wasn't important.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

Just ask Sun. As Linux popularity has increased, Solaris has decreased. Drastically.

And both havent even managed even a double digit percentage of the desktop market.

Linux may not have quite the elegance and
polish of Solaris, but it works well enough.

Hasnt even managed even a double digit percentage of the desktop market.

And it aint gunna either.

And I can' remember the last time my company still
supported HP-UX. And IBM's AIX is also dwindling.

Neither even managed even a double digit percentage of the desktop market.

So, go ahead, sprout more and more verbal diarrhea.

Its spout you stupid pig ignorant illiterate clown.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

 

[geoff]

He isn't worth responding to. The posts come from the university of berlin
and for all we know, it could be several people using one account. However,
groups like this one are magnets for the college crowd, showing off their
knowledge (or what they think they know).

Killfile and move on.

--g

 

[David Brown]

I doubt Microsoft would care, but I wouldn't rule out an outfit like
Dell doing such a thing. Dell could conceivably not only lock it down
to Windows in general, but it might even lock it down to a version of
Windows specifically (XP vs. Vista, etc.). This would be done simply
to limit their support costs and/or drive hardware sales, where a
specific version of Windows is the only Windows available for a
certain machine model. Upgrading to a newer Windows would be
impossible, unless Dell sells you either a patch to the EFI BIOS, or
more likely sells you a completely new machine.

I hadn't thought of this use of "trusted" computing for Dell, but it's
certainly a possibility. However, Dell actually provide a very wide
range of OS's at the moment - pretty much all current versions of
Windows, in multiple languages, along with Linux on some laptops and
desktops, a variety of Linuxes on servers, and are also happy to supply
systems without any OS (at least to corporate customers). It would be a
challenge to keep this flexibility and lock it down at the same time.

There are certainly niches where that /would/ be useful (from the
manufacturer's viewpoint, not the customer's) - PC-based media centres
for example.

The reason I think Microsoft /would/ care is that it could open the way
to forcing users to buy Windows with their systems, and have a stronger
lock on what version of Windows they run. It would make it much harder
to buy a machine with a cheapo "Home Basic" installation, and upgrade it
with a "borrowed" "Ultimate" version, it would be harder to buy
non-windows machines, and it would be harder for manufacturers in
certain countries to pre-install the same Windows license on all their
machines.

However, even the "big business can do no wrong" American legal system
would frown upon deals between MS and motherboard/EFI BIOS suppliers
that restricted systems to "approved" OS's only. The trick for them
would be to convince the RIAA and MPAA that this is the only way to
ensure that no one "steals" media any more.

It does seem a tad too complicated for a piece of software that will
always get put to sleep once the OS starts up.


In the Solaris world, there was a boot firmware system called
OpenBoot. I was always under the impression that it was "open" and
thus available to PC's to use too if they so pleased. I guess they
never bothered to look into that one.

EFI is, I believe, historically related to OpenBoot. OpenBoot is/was
popular on a number of different platforms (SPARC, PPC, MIPS, etc.), but
I don't think it ever caught on in the x86 world. The x86 world has
always been hampered by compatibility with previous generations, right
back to the initial design flaws of the 8086 and the original PC, and
thus even modern machines normally have a traditional BIOS (or an EFI
BIOS which can emulated traditional BIOS functions). Part of this is
due to other platforms being mainly used in the *nix world, where
re-compilation of software to run on a new platform is standard
practice, while in the x86 world a modern machine is still expected to
be able to run unmodified 16-bit DOS binaries.

 

[David Brown]

Yes, but that depends on the size of the original C drive.

With modern drives, you have to do something odd in your partitioning
setup to end up with a C drive that will not cover all your needs for OS
and software. If you are happy with putting large data on a different
drive, it's hard to see why you would need to replace the C drive.

How does EFI actually do that?

The EFI can run many types of internal software, including custom
bootloaders. It's an easy task to write a bootloader that will only
load OS's that match a particular digital signature, or that don't
contain the string "Linux".

Does P6T support GPT? That's what I really care about.

I don't know - sorry. I've read that almost all modern Intel
motherboards have an EFI BIOS, but I have no idea about other manufacturers.

 

[David Brown]

Of course. I tend to "overbuild" my systems so that I can 4-5 years
out of them before I "want" to upgrade. In this case, I "need" to
upgrade to 64-bit and higher performance. But today's "higher
performance" may be tomorrow's file server, and I would want to up the
drive capacity considerably in the future.

Out of curiosity, what OS are you thinking of installing?

So, the "money question." Can the BIOS in the Asus P6T Deluxe V2
board I buy today be flashed to an EFI BIOS, or is there some hardware
required that is simply not included on the P6T (or the X58 chipset.)

I don't know, and the ASUS website gave no obvious answers (presumably
you wouldn't be asking if it did ...). But again, as long as your boot
drive isn't over 2 TB, then it probably doesn't matter.