0676: "Abstraction"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby BioTube » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:40 pm UTC

This comic is incomplete: the AMD64 ISA is itself an abstraction - no x86 processor has actually implemented it in silicon for quite some time.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

scwizard
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby scwizard » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:48 pm UTC

So Randall confirmed for mac user?
~= scwizard =~

Deus
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:14 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Deus » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:58 pm UTC

OFF COURSE I AM A GOD!!!

it says so ON THE SIDE!

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Karilyn » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:04 pm UTC

westrim wrote:Vista is NOT a resource hog, it just doesn't let unused resources go to waste. When I turn on other programs, the OS relinquishes the resources.Same with the instability: I can't speak to what you were doing, but I regularly have my laptop on or asleep for weeks on end, with multiple programs on at any given time (and not solitaire either). It's far more stable than the 3 XP computers I've used. Old myths, debunked a long time ago, but people still believe them and perceive only what backs up their preconceptions.

While the instability is a myth, the resource hogging is not. I've worked on far too many Vista computers for my taste, and it fights tooth and nail to refuse to give up it's resources when I need them. Anyway, why are we talking about Vista instead of Windows 7?

@Randel: You should use Camino instead of Firefox. Both are by Mozilla, but unlike Firefox, Camino was programmed from scratch to be more optimal for macOS. It's the same operating system cosmetically, but it runs a LOT faster, and is a massive improvement.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

KingDead42
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:21 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby KingDead42 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:23 pm UTC

At least Randall will pass where Ray failed...

"When someone asks if you're a god, you say 'YES'!"

ijuin
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby ijuin » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:42 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
hbsmiley7 wrote:Please computer, I never meant to take you for granted!



I know. I sometimes step back and look at, well, everything I use. Just imagine all the effort you would exert just to make 1 sheet of paper, yet minimum wage pays the equivalent of 500 sheets an hour. I can earn enough in a year for a decent car, but I probably would never be able to build one from scratch, not including mining the iron, making the plastic, harvesting the leather, etc.



Think about this: Fifty years ago (i.e. when our grandparents were our current ages), the computers had 16k of memory or less and executed thousands of instructions per second, and were so expensive that a large university could only afford ONE of them. Nowadays, for a week's pay, we can get something with five orders of magnitude more speed and memory, something that NASA in its early years (or the Pentagon) would have gladly spent a billion then-dollars to get their hands on, and what do we do with it? we use it to watch movies and play games and chat with our friends.

If automobiles had experienced a similar rate of improvement in performance since their invention, then today's cars would drive faster than light and travel light-years on a tank of fuel, and have enough engine power to alter the Earth's orbit.

Isaac356
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:32 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Isaac356 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:20 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:If automobiles had experienced a similar rate of improvement in performance since their invention, then today's cars would drive faster than light and travel light-years on a tank of fuel, and have enough engine power to alter the Earth's orbit.


And, for no reason whatsoever, they'd crash twice a day. Jokes aside, I don't think it's really fair to compare the computer industry and the automobile industry linearly. Automobiles require things like high speed impact resistance, a fuel source that can explode on you, etc. They're way more dangerous, and require more failsafes. Of course development is slower.

On another note, just the thought of abstraction being inefficient haunts me every moment of my life. Seriously. Even when I'm sleeping. So for me, this really was a "get out of my head" comic.

Carteeg_Struve
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:56 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Carteeg_Struve » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:33 pm UTC

It's a wonderful thing to be a God of the Geek Pantheon.

(Yes. There is less sex, but at least it's not with family members.)

Saint Cad
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 2:50 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Saint Cad » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:43 pm UTC

Change that second part to:

Because I wanted to draw stick figures hovering above their chair.

and it would truly be the most perfect XKCD comic ever.

RogueCynic
Posts: 400
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby RogueCynic » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:30 pm UTC

It would have been funnier if he said he was trying to run dos 2.2 on the computer.

quote "(Yes. There is less sex, but at least it's not with family members.)" Hera was Zeus' sister.
Last edited by RogueCynic on Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:59 pm UTC

I feel this comic needs more extrapolation!
IE. In the Big Bang the universe was created, then through matter/antimatter annihilation the matter formed and decayed into hydrogen. In stars the hydrogen was turned into heavy elements, which through supernova seeded the galaxies. From these heavy elements we get our planet, and the silicone that is mined to produce microchips*... etc
Although someone else might know a more poetic way of phrasing it. You could end up with a neuron firing in your brain, telling you a cat jumping in a box is funny.


* I ran out of knowledge at this point. Can someone created a full list?
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

westrim
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:51 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby westrim » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:11 pm UTC

Amnesiasoft wrote:
westrim wrote:Of course, Chrome and Opera have never had that feature, so it's still a notch in favor of Firefox.

I just went to the options menu in Opera, went to the Keyboard settings and made a keybind for left and right to switch between tabs.

On a less browser warsy topic (read: The comic), straining itself to run Gecko? Ha! I knew Gecko sucked! Wait, that was still kind of browser warsy.


See, you're messing with me. There is no "options menu". There is printer options, which isn't relevant, and preferences, which is close but nothing in there selects for what I want- and there certainly is no keyboard settings menu. Unless you're using an earlier version of Opera, stop trying to troll me.

Karilyn wrote:
westrim wrote:

While the instability is a myth, the resource hogging is not. I've worked on far too many Vista computers for my taste, and it fights tooth and nail to refuse to give up it's resources when I need them. Anyway, why are we talking about Vista instead of Windows 7?


Well, I can't speak to your experiences, but mine does so just fine. And we're talking about Vista because that's the OS someone decided to bring up solely to slam again. I beta'd 7, it worked great, and I plan to get it- when this computer craps out or I get a newer, faster one. Buying the OS separately is for system builders or for pansies who have to have the latest greatest thing.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:19 pm UTC

westrim wrote:See, you're messing with me. There is no "options menu".


I think he means "opera:config" from the address bar. At least that's similar to how it's done in Firefox (that I use) anyhow.
[edited out broken tags]
Last edited by Technical Ben on Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

justingerard
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:24 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby justingerard » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

scwizard wrote:So Randall confirmed for mac user?

Yes... "darwin system underlying OS X". Though, his not using Safari is a redeeming quality.

User avatar
ysth
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby ysth » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Isaac356 wrote:
ijuin wrote:If automobiles had experienced a similar rate of improvement in performance since their invention, then today's cars would drive faster than light and travel light-years on a tank of fuel, and have enough engine power to alter the Earth's orbit.
And, for no reason whatsoever, they'd crash twice a day.
At some point, this kind of metaphor fails badly.
A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |

Istaro
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:00 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Istaro » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:25 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:
westrim wrote:See, you're messing with me. There is no "options menu".

I think he means "opera:config" from the address bar. At least that's similar to how it's done in Firefox (that I use) anyhow.


Or, at least in 10.10, Tools->Preferences->Advanced->Shortcuts->Edit?

jjsavage
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:05 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby jjsavage » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:30 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:So hands up: How many people read the strip and thought something like, "Man, that's an awful lot of layering for something so mundane. No wonder we need such powerful computers these days. I wonder how much simpler we could make it and still be secure and stable."


We'll find out next year when Chrome OS boxes start coming out.

jjsavage
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:05 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby jjsavage » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:32 pm UTC

Did anyone else feel like the letter 'x' appeared more often than statistically likely in this comic? x64, XNU, POSIX, OS X, Firefox, box... huh.

tahrey
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:48 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby tahrey » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:43 pm UTC

ysth wrote:
Isaac356 wrote:
ijuin wrote:If automobiles had experienced a similar rate of improvement in performance since their invention, then today's cars would drive faster than light and travel light-years on a tank of fuel, and have enough engine power to alter the Earth's orbit.
And, for no reason whatsoever, they'd crash twice a day.
At some point, this kind of metaphor fails badly.


I'll fix it!
And, for no reason whatsoever, they'd crash twice a day we'd and our children would use them to drive around our houses on the ceilings, chase cheetahs across the african planes or just spin slowly in the middle of the room.

^^^ ref to decreasing size, increasing capability and ease of use, changing uses...

BTW am I the only person here that read the strip, read the alt text, went "what?"... then SEARCHED the result rather than stating said confusion?
The video is quite amusing and interesting. How often do you get to see a cat head-on in that pose, jumping athletically out of a box? Or pushing said box around with the express intent of play and nothing more than it? (In the early stages, Maru moves the box to a place where she* has only a borderline chance of jumping into it from the table... then tries just that)

However the alt text requires a suffix: "And why can't I get rid of the CartoonYourself popup that appears at the bottom of the video frame, or the jerkiness?".

Seriously, I've been appreciative of the awesome power contained within the microchip and the work done by all the little electron men running about inside the machine since I was using 8mhz 16-bits (started on 4mhz 8bits but didn't quite grasp the awesome at the time)...... and it baffles me how the incredibly awesome power contained within a modern machine - at least 1000x better than that already wonderous starting box in every single way - is both used for such mundane tasks the majority of the time... and how it does a lot of them very badly. Youtube vids. They're 480x360, most of them, in low rate MPG4. I had a K6/2-450 once that could juuuuuust about fail to run a 512x384 video at full speed, til you turned the sound quality down ... to about that which YT defaults to. So how come almost every video I've ever played through it, on machines from "crappy" old 1.1 Celerons to the lastest high speed dual core uber-beast sitting in front of me, glitches, jerks and drops frames at random points throughout, particularly on the first play, even though it's allegedly buffered the entire thing by the time we're 5 seconds in? (100mbit corporate connection for the win)

And why can none of these machines make Powerpoint animations and the Windows "Marquee" and "Flying Windows" screensavers run any more smoothly than they did in the days of double-digit Mhz? (IE, very choppily and with the text visibly being deleted and redrawn). Has page flipping and being able to render a simple bit of monochrome text or a sub-megabyte bitmap in less than 1/60th of a second not reached the "real world" from the annals of videogaming and demoscenery for some reason? My Atari would struggle to do such things, because it literally didn't have enough clocked packets of electrons whizzing around inside it to transfer that much data in time; but the programmers of the time wrung as much out of it as they possibly could, leaving none of the 160,000 CPU cycles per vblank (512 per line - or about 16 per group of 8, 4-bitplaned pixels... and it'd generally take far more than 1 cycle to execute each instruction... ever wonder why 8-bits were universally low rez and about 256 pix/line with 2 or 4 bits/pixel? The chipset literally couldn't throw any more around without being overclocked. Not to mention the RAM issue...) unturned in a quest for more smoothness, more slickness, more genuine "wow! shiny!". Now it all feels a bit false and a bit flimsy.... there's billions of cycles per second, multiple cores, and most instructions are single-clock; MMX, 3DNow and SSE are effectively several-per-clock. RAM is plentiful enough to never realistically be an issue, and the graphics are typically handled by a subsystem that very much surpassed the point of adequacy for dealing with XGA thru 1080p size displays in 32 bit colour at 100fps many years ago.

Even considering there's "a lot more going on" for the OS to deal with, why do the little things, that PCs have been doing literally SINCE they were also 8mhz, 16 bit (you can do those screensavers on a non-turbo 286, and probably some old version of PPT too if you have a big enough XMS board... and I've seen that such a beast can just about handle throwing EGA-high rez 3D polys around) sometimes not perform anywhere near up to spec? Even MacOS and Linux aren't safe, though I reserve a special hell for Vista**. XP... I can handle. It's alright. But the majority of these "why the fuck is that so slow?" experiences happened under it. The contrast is ever so much greater given that most other things work just fine, some seem positively speedy even now, and it can emulate the old Atari at many, many times it's original pace.

Oddly it happens on high spec machines as well as my now rather crufty 1.7Ghz Pentium-M laptop. Hmm.

* I assume it's a lady cat. I just get that feeling, even though the youtube page is covered in Moonspeak.
** Yes, it IS a resource hog. All you apologisers can step off. So far, seeing it on only a few but universally unhappy machines, it's rivalling Win ME for sheer audacity in claiming all the RAM absolutely as soon as it can, and then not relinquishing any of it, even when to do so would greatly reduce swapping. Have you ever tried to boot a half-gig Vista laptop with a 4200rpm drive? Word of advice: Press the power button, set a 15 minute timer, go do something else. Have lunch, load Jet Set Willy from tape into a Sinclair and see how far you get before the buzzer goes, anything. Just don't sit there fuming at it. Return, log in, reset the timer for 10 minutes, return to whatever you were doing. Return, double click the program you wish to run, reset timer for 5 minutes, finish up your other task. It's just insane that they could spec that as the minimum memory when any pre-release testing would surely have shown it to be unworkable ("minimum" as in, if you have 1gb and half of it blows, you can still just about boot the machine and retrieve your files?), but even more insane that they managed to construct an operating system that would demand a BILLION BYTES OF WORKING MEMORY, not counting the stuff that was STILL swapped to disk, in order to work properly ....... and not provide any huge material benefit I could see vs Win 98SE which would be happy for the whole of its days with less than an eighth of that amount. About 4x what Win2k needed for excellent operation. And double what XP needed to run smooth. DOUBLE. (Yes, I upgraded my XP laptop from 512 to 1024, but only because of using heavy programs - it would have been fine for average use, and booted OK).

What does it DO with it all? Jesus fucking christ. Win7 is better, apparently. It can't be any worse. Ubuntu 9.10, much that I actually hate it quite badly, will at least function respectably in a quarter gig. I have to work with some of these laptops as they were bought on the cheap for lending out to people at my job. I'm very tempted to time just how long it takes from power-on to doing work, it's that bad.

And even when it gets that RAM, it doesn't play so nice. A cousin's laptop that I re-imaged from the recovery CDs a couple weeks ago when she managed to spyware it into oblivion STILL isn't running correctly. Not because of the virus. But because my time is limited, and everything. takes. an. age. to install and set up, and then tends to crash or even hang the system (damnit, didn't XP solve that bullshit?). I can get an XP system up and running with updates, Office and security software in an afternoon. Win98SE, a couple hours. Vista stands at 2 weeks... so far. It's actually worse than the ME desktop they had. At least that had the excuse of being horrendously underpowered (64mb? good god). THIS is a laptop that me & my brother recommended to them on the strength of the specs. It's got 3Gb RAM and a 5400 disk in it. Come on.

AGH. Anyway. We should be moving on from Vista-bashing now, just as we moved on from ME-bashing when 2k and XP arrived. There's such a thing as an older system becoming too soft a target once it ISNT supposed to be the new, cutting edge one anymore.

User avatar
ysth
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby ysth » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:27 pm UTC

tahrey wrote:I have to work with some of these laptops as they were bought on the cheap for lending out to people at my job. I'm very tempted to time just how long it takes from power-on to doing work, it's that bad.
Do so, and calculate how much they are paying for that time, and from that how many uses it takes before a better laptop would pay for itself.
A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |

Kirstead
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:13 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Kirstead » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:14 pm UTC

Am I going blind or did Randall just spell "its" with an apostrophe?

User avatar
Raptortech97
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:39 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Raptortech97 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:50 pm UTC

On a semi-related topicw C am *ayyamlycbi*
*Fuck you, Dvorak-switch! Can't you tell I'm trying to use QWERTY?*
On a semi -related topic, I am *attempting* to make a binary adder, but I don't know how to make the logic gates. Any help, someone? Anyways, in that process, I realized how many gates are needed to add two, two-digit binary numbers without any abstraction whatsoever, and then how adaptable modern systems are, and how hard it must be cram such an abstract system in two square inches, and still calculate hundreds of Fibonocci numbers in a second.
Image
Keldaran wrote:The Church assents to the Creation of House RaptorTech97

05e90f00779bcbe450a05c4c6c044787 Please crack this NTLM hash
In case anyone cares, I am looking for the "share your proofs" thread. I knew it used to be around somewhere...

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:03 pm UTC

Raptortech97 wrote:On a semi-related topicw C am *ayyamlycbi*
*Fuck you, Dvorak-switch! Can't you tell I'm trying to use QWERTY?*
On a semi -related topic, I am *attempting* to make a binary adder, but I don't know how to make the logic gates. Any help, someone? Anyways, in that process, I realized how many gates are needed to add two, two-digit binary numbers without any abstraction whatsoever, and then how adaptable modern systems are, and how hard it must be cram such an abstract system in two square inches, and still calculate hundreds of Fibonocci numbers in a second.


Check up on Wireworld and it's instructions page. It explains logic gates with illustrations/animations. So it's really easy to grasp. I don't know how well that translates to your logic system, are you programming or smelting your own silicon? ;)
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
glasnt
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby glasnt » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:36 pm UTC

I wish my mate's cat could successfully 'Maru'. Then I wouldn't have to have a endless loop of Maru tube vids playing as my screensaver... :(

westrim
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:51 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby westrim » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:48 pm UTC

Istaro wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:
westrim wrote:See, you're messing with me. There is no "options menu".

I think he means "opera:config" from the address bar. At least that's similar to how it's done in Firefox (that I use) anyhow.

Or, at least in 10.10, Tools->Preferences->Advanced->Shortcuts->Edit?


I've already edited the userChrome.css in firefox to let me do it again, but it was annoying that that was needed and I doubt more that 1 percent of the users annoyed by this issue will find that workaround. I typed opera.config into its address bar and got nothing.

tahrey wrote:


Jesus man, I though I was taking up too much space with my posts. Well, first, I've never had jerky Youtube videos except when I was running a game at the same time. A couple other sites occasionally, but not youtube. Dunno what's up with your equipment.

*Reads more*
I don't know what's up, but I've never had any of the issues you're describing, aside from brief peaks in usage when I try to do 8 things at once instead of 7. You're doing something wrong over there, I think.

"Have you ever tried to boot a half-gig Vista laptop with a 4200rpm drive?"
Why in Bobs name would I ever do something like that? I haven't seen a laptop with that little RAM or that slow a hard drive in years, aside from $200 deals that CompUSA was desperately trying to unload. If you don't have the system for a piece of hardware, don't try it- that's freaking basic. My laptop does fine, but I'm not gonna load Crysis on it anytime soon (and again, I got this for $450 spring '08). Oh, and Vista takes about a minute to load. At worst. And not to the login screen, to the desktop, everything ready to go, no programs trying to start up, nothing. It's all done. And for what's better about it than 98, I'd say everything except minesweeper (who decided to make it PRETTY? I'm trying to find mines, not enjoy the 50 shades of blue). I'd hate to have you as an IT guy.

*Reads the rest*
Christ, you do fail. When my hard drive fried (long story, bad fan, bad owner not fixing it quickly) and I got it back, reinstalling Vista this October, plus updates and resetting the preferences and everything else except reinstalling my programs and shuffling back my pictures and document took- I timed it- 5 hours. FIVE. That's WITH the rounds of updates and remembering where to find this or that setting and all the rest. The actual reinstall from disk took about an hour and a half. No, I'm not making this up, I'm looking at the note pad where I wrote it all down when I did this. And again, my system isn't exactly top of the line. It's a Compaq CQ50-115nr, with 3 gigs of ram and a 2 GHz AMD processor, and a decent graphics card. I'm not sure what your issues are, but you've got them.

Well shoot. Now I've written way too much. I'll just throw in a disclaimer, that this is truly based only on my experiences and I receive no money from Microsoft or somesuch. And I feel no loyalty to them any more than I do to Nintendo (whose are the only game systems I have bought since my great grandma got me a N64, mostly because they were cheaper and had sequels to the games I already had.) It just bugs me when I feel that reality is being misrepresented due to prejudices, whether it's 'LOL kiddy games!' or 'LOL dysfunctional OS!'. Or even "LOL elitists!" or "LOL programmers!" for Apple and Linux respectively.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Diadem » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:26 pm UTC

Nevertheless, what does an operating system need almost 10 billion bits of memory for? What does it do with the memory? I just can't compehend what would cost so much memory. What does an OS need that costs memory? A taskmanager, a multitasker, drivers, a garbage collector, some stuff to protect system integrity etc. all of those are a few megs much. Indeed a streamlined version of linux can run from a floppy. And an extra graphical shell can't be a billion fucking bytes.

I just can't comprehend it. Even a hundred meg sounds excessive for an OS.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:59 pm UTC

Karilyn wrote:While the instability is a myth, the resource hogging is not. I've worked on far too many Vista computers for my taste, and it fights tooth and nail to refuse to give up it's resources when I need them. Anyway, why are we talking about Vista instead of Windows 7?


...because the first service pack for Windows 7 isn't out yet? Microsoft is notorious for releasing software that should still be in beta-testing.

Edit: [extinguish]set flamwar_prob = 0[/extinguish]

User avatar
drewster1829
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby drewster1829 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:10 am UTC

tahrey wrote:Oddly it happens on high spec machines as well as my now rather crufty 1.7Ghz Pentium-M laptop. Hmm.


tahrey wrote:Ubuntu 9.10, much that I actually hate it quite badly, will at least function respectably in a quarter gig.


I'm actually running 9.10 on a rather crufty 1.7Ghz Pentium-M laptop I've had since new...but not the default install. My machine started with the default XP, then a stand-alone XP (an extra copy to avoid the stupid bloatware and 80+ processes Toshiba thinks I need when I first boot up), then dual-boot with Ubuntu 7.04 and XP, then to straight Ubuntu...from there, I don't remember how long ago it was (maybe a year and a half?) I reinstalled Ubuntu at some point with just a command-line install and built a custom system: openbox for the window manager, fbpanel for a taskbar, abiword and gnumeric instead of openoffice, leafpad instead of gedit, mplayer, etc, etc. I used the most lightweight programs for as much as I could, but I noticed that it would still use the swap partition when running firefox (3.0 maybe? Maybe older) with Google-Earth simultaneously with the default 512 MB of RAM. So, I bought an extra gig of RAM, and now I can't get it to swap if I wanted it to. It doesn't matter what I have open, the swap partition goes unused, and it's great.

Sure, it was a lot of work, and most people probably don't want to invest that much time building a system from scratch, but it's very fast (faster than when it was brand new, by a long shot), pretty stable (though I had ff 3.6 alpha 2, and it would freeze the GUI maybe once every two weeks of heavy use to where the keyboard wouldn't work, but now that I'm up to Beta 4, it's much more stable), it's exactly what I want/need, and it does everything I want it to do except for play games (who the hell would try to play any decent games on such an old laptop anyway?).

But I love it, even though it's nearly 4 years old now, and I don't think I could bring myself to buy a new laptop. At least, not one with a Windows license because there's no way I'm going to run another Microsoft product again. My grandfather has a newer Toshiba, the cheap dual-core one, with 2 GB (or 3?) of RAM and Vista, and it's soooo slow compared to mine. I can't stand to use it, even though it has a bigger screen. It's just so God-awful sluggish, and it swaps constantly (though not as bad as his old AMD Athlon 64 desktop with XP on it...it's way way worse for swapping. I cloned my custom Ubuntu install, but with the 64-bit kernel, and installed it on a second hard drive on that machine, and it's so much faster to do anything...booting, browsing, shutdown, whatever, it blows XP away).

So, yeah, I'll use Microsoft Windows when I have to, but I try to avoid it when possible. It has its place and purpose, but it's not for me.
"Distrust your judgment the moment you can discern the shadow of a personal motive in it."
-- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

10nitro
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby 10nitro » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:23 am UTC

10nitro wrote:I found Vista to be a huge resource hog, and remarkably unstable (I was forced to use it on my lappy during spring last year). But besides that, it's proprietary software, and therefore, evil.

[...] And you Illustrate my above point precisely: Vista is NOT a resource hog, it just doesn't let unused resources go to waste. When I turn on other programs, the OS relinquishes the resources.Same with the instability: I can't speak to what you were doing, but I regularly have my laptop on or asleep for weeks on end, with multiple programs on at any given time (and not solitaire either). It's far more stable than the 3 XP computers I've used. Old myths, debunked a long time ago, but people still believe them and perceive only what backs up their preconceptions.[/quote]
Granted, the reason I had to use it was for a specific app, which was also a resource hog. While it never actually crashed, there were several times when it stalled and I was forced to power-cycle it (even when I didn't have that app open, but was just using a browser or whatnot). Also, keep in mind that this was pre-SP2, so I'd imagine that it has come a distance since then. (I believe I un-installed on Sunday, April 19; SP2 was released April 28).

hintss wrote:
10nitro wrote:Randy didn't get a Mac, did he?

yes he did, check the blag

I did a quick scan, but didn't see it. I do now.
~ Luke Shumaker
FRC1024 Programmer
IT technician, GNU/Linux admin, comp. security guy
Eagle Scout
http://lukeshu.ath.cx

The_Barbarian
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:03 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA, US
Contact:

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby The_Barbarian » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:54 am UTC

I can see that my war against the term "x64" isn't going to end well. Oh well, it has to be done. :twisted:

It is x86-64, people! There is no such thing as a 364, a 464, a 564, or a 664 processor!
Or you can say AMD64 or EM64T if you want to talk about a specific implementation.

---

In other news, my Firefox creates a new process, which creates a Flash object: http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2009- ... s-plugins/

Ezbez
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:25 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Ezbez » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:15 am UTC

Read I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility for a more literal take on this theme.

Halrandir
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:58 pm UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Halrandir » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:29 am UTC

This type of thing has never occurred to me. What pops into my head more often is the fact that there are trillions of chemical reactions occurring in all the billions of neurons in my brain every minute, transferring information between each other via electrochemical discharges in branching pathways of such complexity that they allow the formation of my consciousness, which is then able to appreciate the humor in a physical real world event that another brain of similar complexity and temperament of consciousness found funny enough to document and save in a non-physical format for my enjoyment and the enjoyment of possibly all users of the internet until the internet ceases to exist.

valbaca
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:00 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby valbaca » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:46 am UTC

I can see that my war against the term "x64" isn't going to end well. Oh well, it has to be done.

It is x86-64, people! There is no such thing as a 364, a 464, a 564, or a 664 processor!
Or you can say AMD64 or EM64T if you want to talk about a specific implementation.


Using x as a wildcard enables it be used to stand for x86-
This is assuming that the x wildcard supports recursion.
So if x86 can = 386 and 486 etc.
than x64 can = x86-64 = 386-64 and 486-64 etc.
x64 works. QED.

User avatar
drewster1829
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby drewster1829 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:19 am UTC

valbaca wrote:
I can see that my war against the term "x64" isn't going to end well. Oh well, it has to be done.

It is x86-64, people! There is no such thing as a 364, a 464, a 564, or a 664 processor!
Or you can say AMD64 or EM64T if you want to talk about a specific implementation.


Using x as a wildcard enables it be used to stand for x86-
This is assuming that the x wildcard supports recursion.
So if x86 can = 386 and 486 etc.
than x64 can = x86-64 = 386-64 and 486-64 etc.
x64 works. QED.


ninja'd! I was totally gonna say that. :lol:

Halrandir wrote:This type of thing has never occurred to me. What pops into my head more often is the fact that there are trillions of chemical reactions occurring in all the billions of neurons in my brain every minute, transferring information between each other via electrochemical discharges in branching pathways of such complexity that they allow the formation of my consciousness, which is then able to appreciate the humor in a physical real world event that another brain of similar complexity and temperament of consciousness found funny enough to document and save in a non-physical format for my enjoyment and the enjoyment of possibly all users of the internet until the internet ceases to exist.


You just blew my mind! It tried to recursively evaluate your thoughts on itself, and it created a paradox and vanished into a singularity. Sir, I salute you.
"Distrust your judgment the moment you can discern the shadow of a personal motive in it."
-- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

The_Barbarian
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:03 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA, US
Contact:

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby The_Barbarian » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:40 am UTC

Using x as a wildcard enables it be used to stand for x86-
This is assuming that the x wildcard supports recursion.
So if x86 can = 386 and 486 etc.
than x64 can = x86-64 = 386-64 and 486-64 etc.
x64 works. QED.


But x isn't a multi-char wildcard like *, it is a single-char wild card, like ?

After all, we don't say Radeon 5x, we say Radeon 5xxx. All other examples I can think of are the same.

inari
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:13 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby inari » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:17 am UTC

http://sisinmaru.blog17.fc2.com is probably my favorite site of all time. Maru just seems to make everything better. And the English is amazing, not to mention the ridiculously cute Japanese. It's good to know that Randall appreciates the awesomeness that is Maru. <3

valbaca
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:00 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby valbaca » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:48 am UTC

The_Barbarian wrote:
Using x as a wildcard enables it be used to stand for x86-
This is assuming that the x wildcard supports recursion.
So if x86 can = 386 and 486 etc.
than x64 can = x86-64 = 386-64 and 486-64 etc.
x64 works. QED.


But x isn't a multi-char wildcard like *, it is a single-char wild card, like ?

After all, we don't say Radeon 5x, we say Radeon 5xxx. All other examples I can think of are the same.


Good point (this was actually on a final exam I took today lol). But remember the x in x86 is multi-char: 8096, 80386, etc. So we can use it as multi-char with x64

Besides, what do you say when talking: "Radeon five ex ex ex" or do you say "Radeon five-thousand (series)"
When talking you say "sixty-four bit" or "ex sixty-four." Not "sixty-four bit extension of the ex eighty-six instruction set"

And if there were, say x87-64 and x23-64 then "x64" would be ambiguous and wouldn't be used. But with names and architectures as they are: x86, x64, and amd64 all make sense and are distinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 (I know a redirect doesn't necessitate equality. Read the first paragraph of the article.)

Image

The_Barbarian
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:03 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA, US
Contact:

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby The_Barbarian » Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:49 am UTC

valbaca wrote:Good point (this was actually on a final exam I took today lol). But remember the x in x86 is multi-char: 8096, 80386, etc. So we can use it as multi-char with x64

Besides, what do you say when talking: "Radeon five ex ex ex" or do you say "Radeon five-thousand (series)"
When talking you say "sixty-four bit" or "ex sixty-four." Not "sixty-four bit extension of the ex eighty-six instruction set"

And if there were, say x87-64 and x23-64 then "x64" would be ambiguous and wouldn't be used. But with names and architectures as they are: x86, x64, and amd64 all make sense and are distinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64 = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 (I know a redirect doesn't necessitate equality. Read the first paragraph of the article.)

Image


But it is much more common to say 386 than 80386. We can consider the "80" to simply be dropped (just like the "HD" in Radeon HD 5xxx) .
You are right that I would say "Radeon five-thousand series". But I wouldn't say "ex sixty-four". Writing or saying "64 bit" is fine, since the context would presumably make it clear that we are talking about x86, as opposed to IA64, PPC-64, etc.

And, yes, I know x64 is in widespread use, and very unlikely to go away. But I can try!

Signing off for this round.

User avatar
Amnesiasoft
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby Amnesiasoft » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:01 am UTC

Istaro wrote:
westrim wrote:See, you're messing with me. There is no "options menu".

Or, at least in 10.10, Tools->Preferences->Advanced->Shortcuts->Edit?

Yes, that's what I meant. Come on, seriously westrim, you couldn't get "Preferences" from "Options." Options, Settings, Preferences, Configuration: They're all basically synonymous in software.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: "Abstraction" Discussion

Postby BioTube » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:18 pm UTC

The_Barbarian wrote:And, yes, I know x64 is in widespread use, and very unlikely to go away. But I can try!
Debian uses it, at least. Of course, this has lead some idiots to try and install the IA64 version on an AMD64 machine("but it's an Intel!") and at least one COMPLETE MORON to ask about the AMD32 version.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 73 guests