Quote:
and GAM, the cpus are CISC, you are right. To the computer, and to the user, to the applications, and to the programmer they are CISC. Its okay that you dont understand it from there. If you want maybe you and I can take a trip to the Costa Rica plant and I can show you around a little.
Nick, Show me where, in Intel's design specs that any of their CPU's are RISC. Not CISC with a plugin for RISC-like commands, but RISC.
I'll save you the trouble, it's not there. You don't need to go to Costa Rica, or even out of your seat.
I can't help it that you're oblivious to Microcode.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Hahahaha wrote:As a (certified in many areas) technician, I would like to remind other "techs" out there that you only see problems. If 9 of 10 machines coming in are loaded with spyware and virusses then you customer base needs an education. In our business (delivering up to 400 machines a month with 3 years warranties) I can assure you that the levels of infection are on the decline and near neglagible in office environments. Yes, rougue employees have caused problems in the past and will continue to in the future BUT the vast majority of infections are coming from home users who access porn or "crack" sites. The software piracy related sites are by far the worst places for delivery viruses. UNeducated users end up in big trouble from visiting those sites.
Ask you anything eh? Tell me what you know about carrier attenuation. The difference between stateful and non-stateful packet searches. What the signifigance of "red" lines vs. "Black" lines are. Heck, if you are like most "techs" you don't even know what MTU means. Not saying that's the case for you, but if you answer those questions, I'll start believing you. After 15 years in this game (as a Electronics engineer, Robotics technician, Systems anylist and Certified networking technician) I have become skepticle of 99% of the "techs" out there.
When it comes to hardware.. If I was talking about Honeywell PCM45F material and PWM, what am I talking about?
PAX
We have customers in all 50 states.. yes they need an education..
carrier attenuation? strength of the analog sine wave??
stateful packet filtering, or stateful packet inspection, this is what a 'REAL firewall does. instead of jsut looking to see where the packet is coming from and where its going to, the packet is actually inspected and the contents are verified to be standard with the particular port that its going to.
red lines black lines?? you mean power and grounds??
MTU, is the MAX packet size your computer is sending, this number can be raised or lowered to tweak the connection, depending on the throughput and latency of the connection.
any others? this is fun....
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
and GAM, the cpus are CISC, you are right. To the computer, and to the user, to the applications, and to the programmer they are CISC. Its okay that you dont understand it from there. If you want maybe you and I can take a trip to the Costa Rica plant and I can show you around a little.
Nick, Show me where, in Intel's design specs that any of their CPU's are RISC. Not CISC with a plugin for RISC-like commands, but RISC.
I'll save you the trouble, it's not there. You don't need to go to Costa Rica, or even out of your seat.
I can't help it that you're oblivious to Microcode.
dude, for hte hundredth time, there is no 'plug-in' for RISC commands, the CPU is CISC, and will not respond to RISC commands.
[
http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/1995/jul95/pcn0727/pcn0727.asp&articleid=1988&guid=
http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/PIIRISC.html
http://martigny.ai.mit.edu/hypermail/thinkpad/1995-03/0165.html
URL=http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/definition.html?lookup=4160]http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/definition.html?lookup=4160[/URL]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-6.html
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars/5
alot of people dont think the cpus from the P6 to today can be considered RISC or CISC, because even though they ARE risc they do not respond to risc commands, and even though they respond to CISC commands, they are being translated, so they are not native CISC chips either, even the Athlons are still based on this setup.
Intel calls this setup 'Riscification'. LOOK IT UP.
Good call..
The only one you missed was the "red" and "black" lines.. It is a way the military uses to distinguish between the "trusted" side of a firewall and the untrusted side.
3DES... What is it and who invented it?
You did well, most don't know the different between public key and private key incryption.
Ever worked on X25 systems?
Do you know the size of an ATM cell and why it's that way? (silly answer in my mind)
Moving away from networking... Do you know why we are moving back to serial devices?
I should just stop, you have already shown that you know more than the average Future shop "Tech".
The only golden rule in computing (someday this will fail as well), CPU trasistor counts double every 18 months. Still as true today as it was way back in the 70s when it was said. Mr. Moore got more than that right, but that's the big one.
It really doesn't matter who's name is on it as long as it performs as expected.
PAX
Im not saying nick doesnt know his stuff, cause i honestly belive he does...but thats not proof in my mind..anyone can go look those up.
Hahahaha wrote:Good call..
The only one you missed was the "red" and "black" lines.. It is a way the military uses to distinguish between the "trusted" side of a firewall and the untrusted side.
3DES... What is it and who invented it?
You did well, most don't know the different between public key and private key incryption.
Ever worked on X25 systems?
Do you know the size of an ATM cell and why it's that way? (silly answer in my mind)
Moving away from networking... Do you know why we are moving back to serial devices?
I should just stop, you have already shown that you know more than the average Future shop "Tech".
The only golden rule in computing (someday this will fail as well), CPU trasistor counts double every 18 months. Still as true today as it was way back in the 70s when it was said. Mr. Moore got more than that right, but that's the big one.
It really doesn't matter who's name is on it as long as it performs as expected.
PAX
3DES, isnt that an encryption algorythem? not sure about who invented it, or why. probably the government
X25 = no
ATM cell size; nope, but our DSL DS3 for our redback runs over an ATM.
serial devices benefit: hmmmm, more efficient hot swapping, more efficient transfers in a RAID configuration, cheaper drives (but more expensive controllers), More over all bandwidth, simple driver design (this goes for any type of serial device), I am sure I am missing something obvious...
Nick: I've pointed this out, it's NOT RISC. Do not belabour this point... If you took a little bit of time to read the articles you posted (from 1999, and the Mackido one is patently WRONG) you'd notice that the CISC command set is still there.
So, I'll do what you didn't:
http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/mi06031.htm
Specifically:
ftp://download.intel.com/design/archives/processors/pro/docs/24269001.pdf (look at page 2-4... The RISC "Bolt-In" is the Dispatch/Execute unit for out of order processing (which is not strictly RISC's domain), but you'll also notice, there's still the Fetch/Decode registers working in Paralell. I said it before, I'll say it again: I can't help it that you don't know about Microcode).
The Registers: All set up for CISC, with a the pipeline technology that is borrowed from RISC, but uses all CISC commands. If you'd kindly look up your OSI layer, Microcode is right above hardware. If it's not able to respond to RISC assembler instructions, point of fact: It's not RISC. Intel does not MAKE a RISC chip for desktops (Itanium is for servers obviously), and the P6 was not a RISC chip in name or design either.
"
Riscification" refers to the micro-opping of CISC based commands within the x86 set (RISC coding is not applicable, this is a program design style). The RISC command set is not valid, and calling the P6 or any other Intel x86 chip a RISC chip is utterly wrong... think calling an LS1 a 2-stroke engine type-wrong. The way an x86 and RISC based processor attack a set of instructions is different, and the thing is that a CISC command set can break down several large operations into a bunch of smaller simple ones, while RISC operations require several groups of operations and may need more code (and more overhead). Neither is implicitly better, both have design flaws. Both are now scalable, but, x86 has had more development, and pure-RISC is going the way of the Dodo. Pure CISC is as well, but, there's more implicit flexibility in CISC coding because of the ability to reduce overhead.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Again, your right, it will not respond to external RISC calls, even though beond the hardware and synthetic registers the only calls it will respond to are RISC.
Maybe when you go to heaven God will explain it to you.
The funny thing is that we are agreeing and you cant see it, even in your post from several days ago, you made and emphasized my points.
Its not all RISC, and its not all CISC, and the chips wont respond to any external RISC calls <--- can we agree on that and forget about the rest?
Roscoe wrote:Im not saying nick doesnt know his stuff, cause i honestly belive he does...but thats not proof in my mind..anyone can go look those up.
You don't have to say it, but I will. Nick doesn't know 1/4 of what he pretends to know on here. He just talks out his @ss and googles the hard stuff. Not too difficult really.
Nick is an average end-user, RAM installer and crap cleaner. No more no less. That's my take on it anyhow.
**there is only one true love in my life... and my girlfriend has learned to live with it**
Gutty96 wrote:Roscoe wrote:Im not saying nick doesnt know his stuff, cause i honestly belive he does...but thats not proof in my mind..anyone can go look those up.
You don't have to say it, but I will. Nick doesn't know 1/4 of what he pretends to know on here. He just talks out his @ss and googles the hard stuff. Not too difficult really.
Nick is an average end-user, RAM installer and crap cleaner. No more no less. That's my take on it anyhow.
As much as nick and his Mac molesting attitude gets on my nerves i think he knows more than the average wannabe PC tech. Although in my opinion i think he may exaggerate a little about his job and skills...
Nick: Sure. But, what I'm trying to get at is that if it won't work with RISC calls, and it's not RISC architecture, it's not RISC. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, who cares if it eats and sh*ts like a dog?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
oooohhh my pc is so cute! its all curvy and bubblely! OMGZ i love my MAC!
i think you get where im going with this.
-Borsty
The only thing I prefer using MAC's for is video editing, and sometimes with Indesign. BUT for 95 % of everything else I prefer using a PC. (This coming from someone who uses both on a daily basis). If I had my way DOS, or Linux would be the standard.
GUI's < Command line.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Used both... I'll take a good GUI with a command line access over command line alone.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Borsty wrote:oooohhh my pc is so cute! its all curvy and bubblely! OMGZ i love my MAC!
i think you get where im going with this.
my Mac's a cube.
R.I.P. Brian St.Germain
MS Walk April 21 - I HIT MY GOAL!!! thanks to those of you who have supported me!
mine has a sexy voice, too, but mine fits into smaller spaces better.
R.I.P. Brian St.Germain
MS Walk April 21 - I HIT MY GOAL!!! thanks to those of you who have supported me!
Ill just say that for games, i have a xbox 360 and love it. Even though is MS, they have did a damn good job on 360 and xbox live.
As far as a computer goes. I love macs and i love the mac os. Windows xp with firefox works well and i dont have major problems. I will soon have mac desktop(if my intel ever gets here) however I will have my xp laptop for a long time. Most places I travel and go, there networks dont seem to work well with my mac.
How many times have we heard about how virus-proof the Mac is. LOL. -
Macs no longer immune to viruses, experts say.Quote:
Apple’s iconic status, growing market share and adoption of same microprocessors used in machines running Windows are making Macs a bigger target, some experts warn.
Apple’s most recent wake-up call came last week, as a Southern California researcher reported seven new vulnerabilities. Tom Ferris said malicious Web sites can exploit the holes without a user’s knowledge, potentially allowing a criminal to execute code remotely and gain access to passwords and other sensitive information.
Ferris said he warned Apple of the vulnerabilities in January and February and that the company has yet to patch the holes, prompting him to compare the Cupertino-based computer maker to Microsoft three years ago, when the world’s largest software company was criticized for being slow to respond to weaknesses in its products.
“They didn’t know how to deal with security, and I think Apple is in the same situation now,” said Ferris, himself a Mac user.
That is a latest anyways. There is this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12537279/ (Feb 17, 2006) and this
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39164062,00.htm (Oct 24, 2004)
Of course why would apple need to update something that is completely secure -
Apple fixes 15 flaws in Mac OS X (Sept 8, 2004) and of course there is this -
Norton Anti-Virus makes Mac OS X less secure (Dec 22, 2005) Well if an application can (accidentally - imagine if on purpose) make you vulnerable... well that's only possible on a NON 100% secure operating system. If you want a 100% secure operating system - OSX is not your answer - and don't hold your breath for an operating system that is.
Quote:
Even God himself couldn't sink this ship.
They where refering to the Titanic which was thought at that time to be indestructable. Time is the test of all things and it showed they where a bit hasty to make that assumption - just as many Mac-lovers are today.
Security is pretty much binary (difficulty aside) - either you are secure or you are not. Even superman has a weakness. Of course its not that OSX is/was superman, just that few if anyone has cared to write a OSX virus - until recently. Yes Windows has more viruses(for now), and more (currently known) security flaws, but again, time will be the test of all things.
I hope you mac-molesters are hungry - You've got plenty of crow to eat.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
OSX has another reported Security flaw:
CHUCK NORRIS.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Bastardking3000 wrote:How many times have we heard about how virus-proof the Mac is. LOL. - Macs no longer immune to viruses, experts say.Quote:
Apple’s iconic status, growing market share and adoption of same microprocessors used in machines running Windows are making Macs a bigger target, some experts warn.
Apple’s most recent wake-up call came last week, as a Southern California researcher reported seven new vulnerabilities. Tom Ferris said malicious Web sites can exploit the holes without a user’s knowledge, potentially allowing a criminal to execute code remotely and gain access to passwords and other sensitive information.
Ferris said he warned Apple of the vulnerabilities in January and February and that the company has yet to patch the holes, prompting him to compare the Cupertino-based computer maker to Microsoft three years ago, when the world’s largest software company was criticized for being slow to respond to weaknesses in its products.
“They didn’t know how to deal with security, and I think Apple is in the same situation now,” said Ferris, himself a Mac user.
That is a latest anyways. There is this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12537279/ (Feb 17, 2006) and this http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39164062,00.htm (Oct 24, 2004)
Of course why would apple need to update something that is completely secure - Apple fixes 15 flaws in Mac OS X (Sept 8, 2004) and of course there is this - Norton Anti-Virus makes Mac OS X less secure (Dec 22, 2005) Well if an application can (accidentally - imagine if on purpose) make you vulnerable... well that's only possible on a NON 100% secure operating system. If you want a 100% secure operating system - OSX is not your answer - and don't hold your breath for an operating system that is.
Quote:
Even God himself couldn't sink this ship.
They where refering to the Titanic which was thought at that time to be indestructable. Time is the test of all things and it showed they where a bit hasty to make that assumption - just as many Mac-lovers are today.
Security is pretty much binary (difficulty aside) - either you are secure or you are not. Even superman has a weakness. Of course its not that OSX is/was superman, just that few if anyone has cared to write a OSX virus - until recently. Yes Windows has more viruses(for now), and more (currently known) security flaws, but again, time will be the test of all things.
I hope you mac-molesters are hungry - You've got plenty of crow to eat.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!!!...
(MSNBC.com is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture.)
weird, and it was released on the same day Apple started their new marekting campaign.. hmmmm...
anyway...
its FUD. and its OLD fud..
Apple's obviously making a lot of people very nervous.
Not a virus; it's a flaw in Safari (please see related articles below). We'd like to meet the so-called "security experts" who call this the "first-ever virus for Mac OS X," so we could suggest they shove some, uh... job training into their busy schedules.
There are a lot more old, recycled, and questionable ideas in the full article, such as the idea that Intel processors make the Mac more susceptible to viruses; it's the operating system that opens a PC to viruses, not the processor (see: eWeek: Intel transition a 'security non-issue' for Apple Mac). Goodin's article is an excellent compendium of FUD. Whether the author knew what he was writing about and was a willing coconspirator or whether some entity or entities sought out an ignorant "technology" writer to unknowingly disseminate their FUD is really the only question.
Fact is, Apple's Mac platform is infinitely safer than Windows. The reason we are seeing articles like this and will see many more in the future has already been explained by our own SteveJack as recently as March 2006: Spate of recent Mac security stories signal that Microsoft, others getting nervous. And that was written even before Apple threatened to seriously disrupt the PC landscape with the Boot Camp concept (ability to run Windows apps at native speeds on a Mac). Expect the FUD to get even thicker as Apple continues taking market share in ever-increasing amounts from the OS-limited Windows box assemblers. Oh look, here's one already, just published fresh for today: More sites rotten to Apples; Operating system no longer 'bulletproof,' according to report.
Mac users: turn on your firewall, don't run your Mac as "root," and use common sense (nobody's giving you a million dollars via random email), and you can continue to surf the Web with relative impunity while Microsoft execs tell Windows sufferers that recovery from Windows malware becoming impossible. Supposedly, it's better to wipe your hard drive, reinstall Windows, and rebuild your computer from scratch every so often. Can you believe that idiocy?
Macintosh. Because life's too short.
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/eweek_intel_transition_a_security_non_issue_for_apple_mac/
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments_opinion/8795/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/01/VULNERABLE.TMP&type=printable
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsoft_recovery_from_windows_malware_becoming_impossible/
Get A Mac - Watch The Ads -
http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/
in actual news: Apple passes Dell in market value - again.
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/Quote.dll?symbol=AAPL&symbol=dell&mode=stock&multi.x=26&multi.y=4
Nick: #1: comparing market value vs. market shares makes poor financial sense.
Apple will more than likely split its shares 2-3:1 before the end of the year.
Also, look at the number of outstanding shares, Dell has over 2 billion shares. Apple's doesn't have a breakdown of market share as well (Apple is still under 15% of the total buying market, consumer and commercial).
#2: Believing that your OS is invulnerable is a fool's game. Obscurity is not defacto security.
#3: XP isn't perfect, but, you can secure it quite nicely if you're willing to learn how to hack the registry, and not leave open holes for exploits
#3.5: If you end up having to reinstall XP, you're going to end up doing the same to Mac OS... The problem isn' the software, the problem is residing 2 feet infront of the monitor.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Nick: #1: comparing market value vs. market shares makes poor financial sense.
oh boy... glad you are not my money man. - It all matters, its all relative; you have to look at everything, and more than any chart, you need to see the big picture. not just about this, but about anything.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Apple will more than likely split its shares 2-3:1 before the end of the year.
Apple splits all the time, they are up something like 10,000% total its INSANE.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Also, look at the number of outstanding shares, Dell has over 2 billion shares. Apple's doesn't have a breakdown of market share as well (Apple is still under 15% of the total buying market, consumer and commercial).
More revenue, yes. Higher profit margins, NO. Apple is the big winner in profit margins. That's why they are on the way up and Dell is on the way down.
The only way they could ever really pull forward in a huge way is if Apple helped them by licensing osX to them. That would be about the only "innovative" thing they'd have in their future.
But trust me, Apple doesnt want Dell to ruin their image, EVEN IF IT MAKES them money in the short term, because they are no ones bitch.
Why do you keep blathering on about pointless shares?
Dell's profits are on the slide. All it knows how to do is build Windows boxes, and the only differential it's had is price. But now the price war is hotting up.
Meanwhile, Apple can differentiate itself and add value with its unique software. It's holding firm on its margins and diversifying into new media.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
#2: Believing that your OS is invulnerable is a fool's game. Obscurity is not defacto security.
Unix expert: Mac OS X much more secure than Windows; recent Mac OS X security stories are media hype
Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 09:25 AM EDT
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/4136/937/
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
#3: XP isn't perfect, but, you can secure it quite nicely if you're willing to learn how to hack the registry, and not leave open holes for exploits
Can you give my mom and grandma a call please, and inform them as to how to 'hack' the registry.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
#3.5: If you end up having to reinstall XP, you're going to end up doing the same to Mac OS... The problem isn' the software, the problem is residing 2 feet infront of the monitor.
Wrong again. Except about where the problem is.
Why do you comment on things that you dont know to be fact?
Just because Windows sucks doesnt mean that OSX sucks. get over it. and stop trying to tell people wich OS to use!! or not use.
