Welcome, Guest |
Welcome to Makestation! We are a creative arts/indie discussion community — Your center for creative arts discussion, unleashed!
Please note that you must log in to participate in discussions on the forum. If you do not have an account, you can create one here. We hope you enjoy the forum!
|
|
tc4me
December 17th, 2024
Blablablabla
|
|
tc4me
December 17th, 2024
Blablablabla
|
|
tc4me
December 17th, 2024
Blablablabla
|
|
tc4me
December 17th, 2024
Blablablabla
|
|
tc4me
December 17th, 2024
Blablablabla
|
View all updates
|
Online Users |
There are currently 463 online users. » 1 Member(s) | 461 Guest(s) Google, daniseo@12345
|
|
|
English class - love or hate? |
Posted by: Darth-Apple - May 22nd, 2013 at 12:08 AM - Forum: Creative Writing
- Replies (15)
|
|
English, much like math, is a very controversial subject for both high school and college students. While I'm not majoring in it, I personally love the subject. However, there are also plenty who are on the opposite end of the spectrum, so here we have a poll. Be sure to register your vote!
|
|
|
Graphing calculators |
Posted by: Darth-Apple - May 21st, 2013 at 11:52 PM - Forum: Technology & Hardware
- Replies (5)
|
|
Pretty much every math class today lists "TI-83 or equivalent" as a list of required materials. Personally, I always felt $100 was a bit pricey for a graphing calculator, so for quite some years I've gotten away with a Casio fx-9750GII calculator instead. It doesn't have nearly as much memory, but it's actually much faster, and programming it has been quite interesting.
On the other hand, being the one guy in class shuffling through my manual's pages while everyone else is doing math wasn't my favorite experience with my cheap calculator, but if you can't afford the expensive ones, why pay for them?
I personally am a huge fan of programming graphing calculators. I almost finished programming minesweeper on mine, although there was one thing I never quite figured out. Any other calculator fanatics out in the community?
|
|
|
In theory - more cores, or higher clock speed? |
Posted by: Darth-Apple - May 17th, 2013 at 2:13 PM - Forum: Technology & Hardware
- Replies (2)
|
|
Everyone thought that by now, 5GHZ processors would pretty much be the standard. Instead, dual-core processors hit the market. The effectiveness of the second core was initially in question, since few applications at the time were really designed to make use of them. Over time, manufactures found that simply making more cores was cheaper than raising the clock speed, and as a result, instead of 5GHZ processors, we're seeing as many as twelve cores inside of one CPU, at a clock speed of around 2GHZ or so. It looks like a similar trend is beginning to hit mobile devices, as it's simply cheaper to add more cores than to raise the clock speed further, and software is slowly adapting. This raises many questions about whether having a single, very fast core would be more effective than tons of smaller cores.
So, the question I'd like to raise is, in theory, would 100 100mhz cores, or a single 10GHZ core be better for today's computing, and how would such a model work for future computing models as technology continues to evolve?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
My personal feeling is that our current software does not make good use of 100mhz cores, so having 100 cores clocked at 100mhz would significantly hurt PC performance. If we're thinking from a theoretical standpoint, it is quite possible that 100 slow cores could be put to very good use, depending on the use. Graphics cards, for example, use a similar model. If software can be developed to be heavily multi-threaded to run across many cores, each core could have its resources, such as its own cache, registers, etc... and these threads would not have to share a universal L1 cache. This could either boost or harm performance, depending on whether a shared cache is more ideal for a multithreaded application, or whether each thread will be using different data entirely. Either way, such a CPU setup has the potential to work if software development makes use of it, but as it stands now, most software, outside of graphics, is not currently designed to make use of that many cores.
In other words, my current feeling is that our current software and our current model of computing simply isn't designed to make use of 100 cores, so a large amount of those cores would simply go to waste in a current system. I do believe that the computing trend will continue to add more cores, and clock speeds may drop slightly as more cores are added, but I believe that we'll always be looking at desktop CPU clock speeds of at least 2GHZ as more cores get added. What are your thoughts?ÂÂ
|
|
|
Running windows programs on Linux |
Posted by: Darth-Apple - May 14th, 2013 at 9:48 PM - Forum: Technology & Hardware
- Replies (6)
|
|
Obviously, one of the biggest disadvantages to using Linux as opposed to Windows is the fact that Windows programs won't run. Thankfully, a diligent group of developers have developed WINE, a program that makes Linux compatible with some windows programs. (It doesn't work that well, but some programs will run great. )
WINE is free, but if you are willing to pay, there is also a product by codeweavers called crossover linux. I have never tried it myself, but from what I hear, it works significantly better than WINE.
|
|
|
General Direction of Ubuntu [poll] |
Posted by: Darth-Apple - May 14th, 2013 at 8:28 PM - Forum: Technology & Hardware
- Replies (5)
|
|
Needless to say, Ubuntu has changed quite a lot over the past few years, especially since the launch of Unity. Ubuntu, once a favorite among many linux distributions, has received much new criticism. At the same time, it remains the most popular linux distribution with a rapidly growing user base. What does this mean for the future of the distribution?
Personally, I feel that Ubuntu will continue to grow, but I am keeping my eyes out for alternatives. While the rather short support cycle of Fedora isn't the most comfortable thing ever, pretty much everything else about Fedora is much better than that of Ubuntu, and it is a much cleaner, better distribution overall. Many other distributions are rising up as well.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Preferred linux distribution |
Posted by: Darth-Apple - May 13th, 2013 at 12:10 AM - Forum: Technology & Hardware
- Replies (19)
|
|
Personally, I'm a huge linux fan. It's also much nicer with RAM usage, making it a good option for older computers as well. With distributions such as Ubuntu, openSUSE, and Fedora, Linux is no longer something only an expert can use. My personal preference is Fedora, as Ubuntu seems to be losing its quality a bit.
What is your preference?
|
|
|
|