On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:03:11AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote: > On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 12:56, Vikki Roemer wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 07:02:20PM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote: > > > 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? > > Nope, 'fraid not. :( > > If not, if/when my parents want to upgrade their box I'm going to have > > a *lot* of fun... :( > > Because they have RDRAM in them now? Yup. The Sacred Windowbox (as I call it) is one of those early P4s-- it was actually manufactured in May '01, we bought it in August '01. > > 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 ;). > > Like now? Yeah. My .sig on my parents' computer is different (older) and I don't have a copy of my gpg key on that computer; though, now that I have samba set up, I can update the sig. Anyway, that's the way to tell the difference by email. But I generally go on my computer during lunch break and at night after school-- otherwise, I'm either upstairs in high school, or at the community college for US history and Python (elective). > > 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. > > I don't have any trouble at 3-4 feet away with 1280x1024 on a 17" > monitor. Ok, a little bit, but not enough to bother me. Windows is > involved, though; while you can configure the display resolution (in > dpi), doing so causes all sorts of horrible graphics glitches. X, on the > other hand, deals with the rather odd setting of 106x100 dpi without a > hitch, and so do all the applications. Go figure. Fonts are scaled up to Ah, the beauty of Linux! :) > > And it slices, and it dices, and it smooths wrinkles, and it cures > > [random terminal disease] > > ...flash! Oh, not that kind of terminal... LOL I knew you'd get that pun. :) > Well, I just tried a quick experiment on my dad's laptop. (One good > thing about Windows 2000 is it lets you change refresh rates easily.) > There is no visible difference between a refresh rate of 60 Hz and 100 > Hz. None. I also looked at each display through my digital camera's CCD > sensor; some scan patterns are clearly visible on the CRT, and there is > no such thing on the laptop display. Wow. BTW, is the refresh rate what causes the flicker if I run certain screensavers, do you think? I've often wondered that. > If nothing else, LCD monitors are _much_ easier on the eyes, for this > reason. Even if you have to run them at a refresh rate of 60 Hz, they > are very gentle. Huh. That's definitely a Good Thing. BTW, tomorrow is the computer club meeting, when we start getting ready to set up the cluster-- hopefully we won't have any snow. :) -- 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:
pgpRuVQ8RAV7v.pgp
Description: PGP signature