|
buffer underruns
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 16:22 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 09:54 |
|
computer parts posted:i forget who but a desktop manufacturer had a (then) amazing demo about how you could play two videos simultaneously on a machine that didn't cost $5,000 wasn't that beos?
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 19:17 |
|
i have a 3d spinning teapot, an mp3, AND a mov file playing at the same time
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 19:25 |
|
ruby idiot railed posted:that poo poo didn't get any better until early-mid 00's and I don't remember why you upgraded to 2000 or XP
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 19:29 |
|
pseudorandom name posted:you upgraded to 2000 or XP win2k Pro -> XP -> 7 upgrade path supremacy
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 19:32 |
|
pram posted:i have a 3d spinning teapot, an mp3, AND a mov file playing at the same time
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 19:33 |
|
bbbbbbut realtime scheduling is HARD guys ;_; also that thing about driving 4K displays is possibly the worst example you could give display technology loving stood still for about 10 years because FULL 1080 P HD IS TOTALLY AWESOME even now you're only just starting to see 60Hz 4K displays Sapozhnik fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Apr 16, 2015 |
# ? Apr 16, 2015 19:38 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:did your computer run two 1920x1200 monitors in true 24-bit color? the circa 2001 unit can, yes. i couldn't afford a workstation this nice back then. no one was gonna pay for that kinda horsepower for someone like me. but there were jobs that needed that kinda stuff edit: in 2001 i had three monitors at 1152x900 each. that's fewer pixels than my laptop pushes for a single 15" display. Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Apr 16, 2015 |
# ? Apr 16, 2015 19:59 |
|
Subjunctive posted:InfiniteReality was indeed insane (like 200GB of video RAM?), but I didn't think it had a display connection with a high enough data rate to drive 4K@60, even if it could render a scene that fast. (Parallel video decode is rare, so likely only one of those cards mattered perf-wise, in the unlikely event that it could accelerate H.264 or equivalent anyway.) I can't find a reference though. the IR boardsets could drive an insane number of discrete outputs in sync. 8? 16? 32? i really don't remember. your old-timey 4k setup wolud have used four outputs on a single projected surface as for rendering the scene, sgi's favorite demo was texturing a 3d whatsit with realtime video edit: also, re: h.264, back then, you wouldn't have used such an elaborate compression algorithm for the video. sgi's filesystem had guaranteed rate I/O specifically to allow you to stream much less heavily compressed video in real time. the brute force solution who cares about getting your video stream down to 36 mbps when you can just have a giant loving disk array pushing 3,600 mbps Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Apr 16, 2015 |
# ? Apr 16, 2015 20:01 |
|
Soricidus posted:the real problem is all the inefficient code that's everywhere these days. people are just too lazy to optimise properly and will insist on using hilariously inefficient languages for everything. the end result is that the average program could run much, much faster if it was designed properly and written carefully in a low-level language, but actually runs like molasses because the idiots chose to half-rear end it in c++, in this popular opinion from the 1990s that inefficient code would have been too expensive to write at all back then, and if it was written, it wouldn't have been safe to use it with anything that came over today's internet slow, managed code means that artcode is a thing that's economically feasible to write and $30 linux machines with GPIO pins and AV output make that revolution accessible
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 20:23 |
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:that inefficient code would have been too expensive to write at all back then, and if it was written, it wouldn't have been safe to use it with anything that came over today's internet i know the joke is that people have been complaining about bloat hampering progress for as long as computers have existed (and it's never been true)
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 20:25 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:edit: also, re: h.264, back then, you wouldn't have used such an elaborate compression algorithm for the video. sgi's filesystem had guaranteed rate I/O specifically to allow you to stream much less heavily compressed video in real time. the brute force solution because that doesn't work when streaming it on giant trunk cables under the loving ocean from london to boston?
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 20:34 |
|
this is the dumbest poo poo jesus
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 22:24 |
|
forget old pcs, gimme some vintage Linux bugs that are still unfixed
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 22:24 |
|
bobbilljim posted:this is the dumbest poo poo jesus hello
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 22:25 |
|
ruby idiot railed posted:that poo poo didn't get any better until early-mid 00's and I don't remember why at some point the various optical drive suppliers invented tech that allowed the drive to restart a burn after a buffer underrun. produces a gap or "link" in the spiral but they figured out how to do it such that (most) readers didn't gaf this helped a lot, so did non poo poo operation systems. also growth in ram capacity so you could have reasonable size buffers instead of a couple kilobytes or whatevs they were doing back when oh-poo poo-gently caress-moved-the-mouse-now-I-own-a-coaster was a thing
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 22:27 |
|
installed LUBUNTU on my YOSMAS gift netbook and its owning
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 23:05 |
|
Smythe posted:installed LUBUNTU on my YOSMAS gift netbook and its owning more than GNOME3???
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 23:08 |
|
bobbilljim posted:dumbest poo poo jesus mods pls
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 23:23 |
|
computer parts posted:i forget who but a desktop manufacturer had a (then) amazing demo about how you could play two videos simultaneously on a machine that didn't cost $5,000 it was be, inc, and they were showing you a machine that did cost $5,000
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 23:49 |
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:more than GNOME3??? gnome 3 is epic ftw on my monster ASUS ROG luggable and also PWNAGE on my powerful custom Gaming Rig but it ill tbh my friend ill come clean it ran like dog poo poo on my Acer Aspire One Pro (THANKS to Stereotype for snedding it to me for YOSMAS)
|
# ? Apr 16, 2015 23:52 |
|
Finally found the perfect use case for debian stable.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 00:45 |
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:Finally found the perfect use case for debian stable. it's hosting your idiot developer's php apps so security updates are quick and reliable pity their code is the security fuckup
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 13:51 |
|
i wish go, a garbage collected language, was a bit more high level so I could push that for all new code. maybe D is the language I am looking for. edit lol the major web framework only supports nosql properly. back to looking at java i guess. cowboy beepboop fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Apr 17, 2015 |
# ? Apr 17, 2015 13:55 |
|
my stepdads beer posted:it's hosting your idiot developer's php apps so security updates are quick and reliable 10 year old laptop.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 14:50 |
|
Soricidus posted:the real problem is all the inefficient code that's everywhere these days. people are just too lazy to optimise properly and will insist on using hilariously inefficient languages for everything. the end result is that the average program could run much, much faster if it was designed properly and written carefully in a low-level language, but actually runs like molasses because the idiots chose to half-rear end it in c++, in this popular opinion from the 1990s http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/tirix/embarrassing-memo.html October, 1993 posted:In the May report, I listed a bunch of executable sizes, and pointed out that they were unacceptable if we intended to run without serious paging problems on a 16 megabyte system. Between May and the 5.1 release, many have grown even larger. IRIX went up from 4.8 megabytes to 8.1 megabytes, and has a memory leak that causes it to grow. Within a week, my newly-booted 5.1 IRIX was larger than 13.8 megabytes -- a big chunk of a 16 megabyte system. It's wrong to require our users to reboot every week.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 15:31 |
|
in 1993 you could buy a unix workstation for $5,000, or a windows desktop for $5,000. the unix workstation took an hour to boot and a full minute to alt-tab. the windows desktop flew. guess who won bloat killed unix on the desktop 20 years ago, so now linux users have an ancestral fear, passed on greybeard-to-greybeard. no evidence is necessary. no fact-based argument will work. bloat is original sin, tainting all things.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 15:35 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:in 1993 you could buy a unix workstation for $5,000, or a windows desktop for $5,000. the unix workstation took an hour to boot and a full minute to alt-tab. the windows desktop flew. guess who won The people programming modern linux desktops were in high school when workstation unix ceased to be relevant or, in suspicious dish's case, primary school greybeards wrote off desktop linux completely when the one-two punch of gnome 3 and kde 4 happened and mostly moved on to osx, or they're in full-on crazy homeless person mode and still running their poo poo in fvwm on slackware or whatever.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 15:55 |
|
Mr Dog posted:The people programming modern linux desktops were in high school when workstation unix ceased to be relevant I was still using a unix workstation at work up till about 4 years ago this may not be a contradiction
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 16:59 |
|
Mr Dog posted:full-on crazy homeless person mode and still running their poo poo in fvwm on slackware or whatever. its me
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 17:31 |
|
Soricidus posted:I was still using a unix workstation at work up till about 4 years ago same, but 5 years. and even then it was mostly-unsupported and waaay too slow for my needs. unix workstations were definitely not relevant that recently, i was just working in a hosed up place with weird opinions about linux. i assumed i was among the the last fuckers on earth clinging to sparc/ia64 desktops Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Apr 17, 2015 |
# ? Apr 17, 2015 17:44 |
|
Mr Dog posted:greybeards wrote off desktop linux completely when the one-two punch of gnome 3 and kde 4 happened and mostly moved on to osx, or they're in full-on crazy homeless person mode and still running their poo poo in fvwm on slackware or whatever. Then who the hell is complaining about systemd?
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 17:47 |
|
Mr Dog posted:The people programming modern linux desktops were in high school when workstation unix ceased to be relevant this is why the persistence of the "bloat" legend amuses me so much none of the current generation of users even remembers the brief window when bloat actually mattered.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 17:47 |
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:Then who the hell is complaining about systemd? that's the "crazy homeless person with fvwm" crew
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 17:47 |
|
i could probably get my poo poo done with fvwm, rxvt, and firefox tbh. hm. well, they'd need hidpi support, though i guess running my display at half its native resolution would be ok provided that X uses blocky pixel scaling and not your-screen-covered-in-grease scaling (but enough about my friday nights)
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 17:51 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:that's the "crazy homeless person with fvwm" crew It all makes sense now.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 17:56 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:that's the "crazy homeless person with fvwm" crew don't you use fvwm
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 21:20 |
|
eschaton posted:don't you use fvwm no.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 22:32 |
|
kwin ftwin
|
# ? Apr 17, 2015 22:56 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
# ? Apr 18, 2015 06:22 |