|
...But it seemed to have disappeared... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Librarian: Why did you ask that? Who told you we did?
|
|
|
|
|
I asked the librarian if they had any books about Fight Club...
She looked at me very angrily and said: Remember the First Rule!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Did she have a black eye?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, in my experience, DR is something that companies talk about, investigate, and prototype endlessly. I've never seen any company actually implement it fully. The only exception being a couple of telecoms I worked for who did it for some of their backend systems. They came closest, but even they had gaps.
|
|
|
|
|
Work for a bank, alright a BIG bank, fully implemented AND tested, they used to pull the plug on the production environment and switch to DR an irregular intervals. Hardware suppliers love them, however they recently moved everything to virtual servers and DR seem to have been eliminated (I have no idea how or why and really don't care) .
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: they recently moved everything to virtual servers and DR seem to have been eliminated (I have no idea how or why and really don't care) .
Multi-region perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I've seen telecoms do similar testing and still fail in the real world. In those cases, it tended to be some overlooked component of the overall infrastructure. Back then, the telecoms owned everything up to and including the last mile, so they owned the entire problem.
The trend nowadays (sounds like maybe with banks too) is about shifting liability...failure is always an option as long as you have someone else to blame! 
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa. Total disconnect - when I see 'DR' I (internally) read Dominican Republic, since my wife is from there. 
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
That's OK. I see Digital Research, since I ran DR-DOS as long as I could.
|
|
|
|
|
What are your thoughts on this?
Over the years I have usually upgraded my hardware to the latest, greatest thing - once the initial price premium has eased off a bit. But now...
I have a laptop that is seven years old. It has an i7, 8GB of memory and a 500GB SSD (only three years old). It runs Windows 7 Pro with some VMs of DOS, Windows XP, and Linux just for fun. It has a 17", 1920 by 1080 screen, a touch-pad (which I rarely use) and a pointing stick I use quite a lot. It also supports two external screens, a keyboard and mouse - has sound, re-writable CD/DVD, card readers, USBs and all the usual paraphernalia.
There is a brighter area in the bottom right corner of the screen - only noticeable when the screen is dark - and the case is cracked slightly at one corner where I dropped a laser printer on it once. otherwise pretty much "as new".
Just about everything I want to do, it does and does well or, at least, quite well. I started a new job recently and the brand new laptop they provided me with is only an i5 and a 250MB SSD - most of the other bits are pretty much the same except it runs Windows 10.
My 7-year old laptop at home outperforms it and shows no sign of quitting any time soon.
Unless it does actually quit why would I consider "upgrading" it?
Computers these days are not quantum leaps better than last year's model as they were a few years back; they are, at best, a little bit better, maybe.
Have we come to a watershed where only the software really matters and the hardware is stagnated, not worth the (huge) effort to change to the latest version (I avoid the word "upgrade" here as it doesn't seem appropriate anymore)?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
modified 4-Sep-18 15:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
If it's not broken, don't fix it
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: If it's not broken, don't fix it
Ummm...
Kevin Marois wrote: If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Ah.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I only upgrade my hardware if (a) it is broken, (b) it can't do some required operation, or (c) I can no longer get the supplies it requires (e.g. printer toner cartridges). Any other policy is a waste of money, IMO.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer to upgrade it just before it breaks: it works out cheaper as you can plan better, and don't waste time waiting for parts.
Hence why I spent time on Monday to MS tech support: my processor was dying (one core was regularly reaching 75C, the shutdown temp for the core and causing soft errors.
At a guess, the thermal paste had degraded - it's an old dual core processor - and yes, I could have replaced the paste. But I've had problems with that before, and temps that high reduce silicon lifetimes so it was better to bin it and get a newer jobbie. That runs at 35~38C which is a load better!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: seven years old. It has an i7, 8GB of memory and a 500GB SSD
Forogar wrote: an i5 and a 250MB SSD
Yep, the SSD solves a lot of performance problems and is probably a large part of why your 7-yr old laptop still works.
On the flip side, I bought my wife a brand new i5 with 8GB ram. It had win10 on the 500GB HDD (not SSD).
Booted up the new machine and it went into a win10 update cycle and was uselessly slow.
I took the 120GB SSD out of her old celeron laptop, copied win10 to the SSD and slapped it back in the new i5 machine and it has been running perfectly since.
My point is just that SSDs solve a lot of performance problems even though the OS may create others (or maybe the OS even solves some performance problems that are far less dramatic than the I/O HDD problem).
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it used to be that if you wanted Windows (any version) to run faster/better you added more memory.
Now it seems that adding an SSD generally gives the same effect.
Of course, adding more memory and a big SSD is the best bet!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
I think an SSD allows you to do more with the same resources: because it takes so much less time to load, you don't need to keep so much open and that frees up RAM.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree; if you change the default swap file size (when you have an SSD) to something quite large then you can have a lot of things open and still have the performance.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
I still have a similar age laptop, I think I bought it in 2011. Same story, I replaced the failing HDD with an SSD. Around the time when Win 10 came out I got the free license upgrade from Windows 7.
Big mistake! After that one core was always maxed out with Cortana, and the GPU was always maxed out with the fancy UI.
Since I really only use it to read email and RDP into servers when I'm onsite I just installed Xubuntu on it - can probably get another 7 years of life out of it now.
|
|
|
|
|
What model of the laptop are you using?
Most i5 models today have better single core performance (~32% faster) than 2011 i7s, while the multicore performance of the i7s being 1% faster in normal conditions and 17% faster when overclocked.
|
|
|
|
|
I upgrade when my laptop is smoking, or gets too hot to touch 
|
|
|
|
|
Two points I would like to make:
1. The brighter area of the screen might be fixable if it is screen burn. Google lcd screen burn repair and there is advice and free software that will attempt to fix it.
2. Laptop CPUs used to come in two varieties: performance and eco - the eco versions tended to perform on a par with the next level down, so an eco i7 would perform similar to a normal i5 and an eco i5 would perform similar to an i3. This could be why your old i7 is outperforming the new i5 so much.
As has been said: if the laptop you have does what you want then why upgrade? A computer is just a tool.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
