On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 07:02:20PM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:48, Vikki Roemer wrote: > > MHz. Dad's laptop has some ridiculously fast Athlon XP or something, but > it's running Windows 2000, so it's kind of wasted. "Linux: because a computer is a terrible thing to waste". Sorry, couldn't resist. :) At least he's not running Windows ME-- that's what's running (limping, actually) on my parents' box. When I reinstall ME (right after I get Samba straightened out), I'm going to dual-boot it with Libranet. :) > > Well, come to think of it, RAM is a kinda interesting-- DDR, SDRAM, > > RDRAM, etc. Or at least, there's more to keep track of. HDDs, > > outside of size, don't vary much AFAICT. *shrug* > > RDRAM is dead thanks to Rambus' legal (illegal?) maneuvers and the Hmm, I thought I'd heard something about that. I know that when Intel's contract with them ran out, Intel didn't renew it-- that was (one of) the first sign(s) of trouble for Rambus. > superiority of DDR. Non-DDR SDRAM is pretty much obsolete, though cheap. > DDR is king. Great. Can DDR RAM go in an RDRAM slot and work with an RDRAM module? If not, if/when my parents want to upgrade their box I'm going to have a *lot* of fun... :( But I thought that P4s didn't work as well with DDR as with RDRAM-- or was that just FUD on Rambus' part? > Xbill. Ouch. For those who can't be bothered to get carpal-tunnel > syndrome the hard way (on a keyboard)... *grin* Nah, not likely; I only play that when I've had a *really* bad day on a Window box *and* I have some free time. Needless to say, that's a pretty rare combination-- I have more than my fair share of 'bad Windows days', but free time is the problem. Or, when I *do* have some free time, I'm spending on my Linux box (of course ;). BTW, how is xbill worse than anything else out there? > I have these cordless headphones now. Since the wires (between the > transmitter and computer) don't move very often, they're subjected to a > _lot_ less wear and tear. They are slightly tinnier than the last > headphones I had, but it's a small price to pay for the advantages of > cordlessness. Cool. > > Hmm, I'm not sure. But how can you *see* anything at that high a > > resolution? > > My eyes work extremely well at the distance between the monitor and my > head. They never seem to get tired from it, either. I'm somewhat > nearsighted, but that doesn't really explain this ability of mine; more > likely it's a side effect, rather than the cause. I don't think I ever > remember having any trouble reading off monitors, even at high > resolutions. Yeah, that's not nearsightedness-- I'm nearsighted, but this monitor is the only one that I'm trying to get above 800x600. Mine is a 15", but it's only about ~1 ft. away from me when I'm sitting forward typing, so 1024x768 is more comfortable for me to work with (unfortunately, I'm having a heck of a time configuring X to work with this bloody video card...); my parents' monitor, OTOH, is a 17", but they would kill me if I turned up the resolution and I wouldn't be able to see properly anyway if I did-- the monitor is 3-4 ft. away, so that's probably part of it. Otherwise... *shrug* maybe it's a Windows thing. > > As a result, I often use very high resolutions, and generally prefer at > least 1280x1024 on my 17" monitor. I would run 1280x1024 on my 15" Whoa! Tiny writing... > monitor too, were it not for the fact that my parents need to use it > sometimes, and their eyes can't handle that; they want 800x600 on it. > Neither of these monitors can support resolutions higher than 1280x1024 > at a decent refresh rate, sadly, or I would push it higher. On my 17" Jeez, I really have a crappy monitor-- the highest mine will handle is 1024x768, with 800x600 as the recommended resolution, according to the manual. > monitor, my font of choice for terminal windows and the like is > -misc-fixed-medium-r-semicondensed-*-*-120-*-*-*-*-*-* (in other words, > semicondensed 'fixed' at 12 points; at 1280x1024, that's a pixel size of > 13, in case you haven't configured the physical size of your monitor). Actually, I know points better than I know pixels-- years of using word processing software. :) As I said, tiny writing... > > I just want an LCD monitor because it would fit on my > > desk better than this CRT monitor does. And it wouldn't take as much > > electricity to run it, which would make it run cooler. > > And it would reduce your power bill, and it's easier on the eyes (even I > can see more clearly on such a display), and it doesn't expose the > viewer to a strong electromagnetic field, and it isn't disturbed by > electromagnetic fields from other devices (eg, unshielded speakers)... And it slices, and it dices, and it smooths wrinkles, and it cures [random terminal disease], and it... Seriously, I started going off the same way, too, when I was typing originally-- that's why I stopped where I did. *grin* But I'm not sure that an LCD monitor is worth $3-500, even if I *did* have the money, which I don't. *shrug* -- Vikki Roemer Homepage: http://www.2khiway.net/users/vroemer Registered Linux user #2880021 http://counter.li.org/ "Just because you're not paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you." (ripped from someone's slashdot .sig) PGP fingerprint: 0A3E 0AE4 CCD9 FF31 B4BB C859 2DE1 B1D8 5CE0 1578 Keyserver: http://pgp.mit.edu/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GAT d-(?) s: a--- C++++(++) UL++++ P+ L+++>++++ E W++ N+ o? K- w--() O? M? V?(-) PS+(+++) PE(++) Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X-() R*(?) tv-- b+++(++) DI+ D--(?) G e-(*)>+++++ h! r-- x? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgpghyegsMDa6.pgp
Description: PGP signature