Marinatall_Ironside

I don't outright remember if this has been discussed by moderation lately. Its not big issue, or at least not often reported. If reported and after review its seen that topic lies heavily on speculation, imo it should be moved to General Discussion. However, this would need to be evaluated case-by-case. Like, are "leaks" on different platforms that get reported by news sites considered speculation, rumors or other?

oh no ...... not the feature nobody asked for! how will we live

aka noise cancelling
 
i have autism and for me these headphones arre the best ive ever owned:
Soundcore Life Q20 Bluetooth Headphones with Noise Reduction, 40 Hours of Battery Life, Hi-Res Audio, Deep Bass, for Travel, Travel, Work (with AUX Cable), Home Office, Online Courses : Amazon.com.be: Electronics
dont let the price make you think its bad, they ae amazing, ive had 2 since 2019 because i was realy rough with my first pair
they do an amazing job of having only noise inside the headphones, cant hear anything outside, sometimes not even cars and only the rumble of them driving! to the point where with soft music id think i was just floating in the void with my eyes closed
they also have impressive sound quality
with a bit of tuning ive found them to perform better than my bose quietcomfort 35 
 
deffinatly my prefered headphones

The main difference I see between a formal standard and proprietary one is that the former is controlled by a standards body, and the latter is controlled by company. Formal standards can be initiated by companies, but they give up sole control over it in the process of standardisation. They may still provide input to future versions. Popularity does not play a part in this.
 
By my interpretation, 12VHWPR would not fall under proprietary as it is published by PCI-SIG. I'm not sure about 12VO. ATX and derivatives were (are?) an Intel standard, but I don't know who runs it now. Is there an industry group? So I'm wondering if ATX is a de facto standard but is proprietary? Another example of this might be CUDA.

Honestly, at current rate of increase in power consumption.
Soon enough the standard will be like :
 

How does this replace those standards? The motherboard uses the 8pin PCIe and 12VHPWR connectors to provide power to the graphics card. The connectors have been moved to the motherboard instead of on the graphics card.
 
There's a 12VHPWR connector on the motherboard which is to provide power to the card.
 

 
 
This doesn't compete with 12VO standard...? This motherboard works with a standard ATX power supply. There's still 5V, 3.3V, 5VSB.
 
 
12VHPWR is an industry standard connector. It's designed by PCI-SIG as part of PCIe 5 specifications and was also adopted in to Intel ATX design specifications.
It is not Nvidia exclusive. The only reason AMD is not using it is because they chose not to.

Sadly this isn't the situation. When it comes to Nvidia GPUs the SXM slot is proprietary to Nvidia and they even go so far as to require server vendors to use board modules design and manufactured by them or to be manufactured to their design.
 
For PCIe power servers use vendor specific power delivery so the only standard part is the single device end with the PCIe power connector on it. You cannot even guarantee that the same power cable will work between different generations of servers from the same vendor.
 
Servers are a hotbed of proprietary designs and implementations and they only conform to industry standards and specifications where actually necessary.

I think you answered your own question. Server stuff has a better margin and they are more likely to accept a price hike, so it makes sense to prioritize these customers.
 
If you lose the business of a few individual consumers, who cares, they'll come back eventually. If you lose business customers who order a large amount of hardware each year, it's a different story.

I agree that there are bad aspects of Microsoft's communication, what I disagree with your statement is that Microsoft does not tell you what features use TPM or how they work as they certainly do both. I don't know if they have changed in Windows 11, I don't think they have as of yet but they very well could in later builds before RTM or post RTM.
 
If every device running Windows 11 has TPM and it's actually enabled Microsoft could, or may have already, removed the existing capability for features that don't currently require TPM but can use it if present and enabled to work without TPM. Some features do require TPM, some do not, however the ones that do not but can use TPM 1.2 or 2.0 are actually considered more secure than utilized without, and that's not even Microsoft saying that.
 
Biometric data (finger print, picture etc) should not be stored within Windows, Windows Hello (not just business version) can store this in TPM. Windows Hello without TPM does not attain any of the security standards accreditations and certain levels cannot be attained if it's capable of disabling TPM and it falls back to just within the OS.
 
You definitely have not being saying the same things, that's why I select and address more specific point you have made, about a product that isn't even in final build and release yet.
 
In bold. fall back to Windows 10 information, it's that or better. So my point was and is they have told you i.e. go and read it.
 
And that's where you've gotten lost, technical reason are not the only good reason. You can technically store passwords in plain text, there is no technical reason this cannot be done. There is a non technical reason why you shouldn't do this, and no don't try and justify it with technical reason as to why not doing so is better. That is a technical solution to a non technical issue. Big difference.
 
Don't cripple your software or security to support legacy hardware that doesn't support modern security implementations. Why have Secure Boot without TPM when you can have Secure Boot with TPM. And if I go down your line of must having technical reasons then there you have one, the technical aspects of Secure Booth with TPM over without it.
 
 
That as far as I'm aware until there is counter factual information devices without the required TPM support can buy a TPM module and then be able to install Windows 11. It's not a dead end like you've said it is. I could be wrong, you could also be wrong. That information is not clear yet. All I know for sure is Windows 11 check for TPM presence and it's enabled and near as much any computer is possible of passing that check it's just that it might require $30-$50.
 
Otherwise continue to run Windows 10, you don't have to or need to run Windows 11 yet.
 
Windows 10 is support until 2025, Windows 10 isn't going to stop working because Windows 11 is out.
 
If you think DIY represents 10% or more of the PC sales market then I think you might have you head a little too far in to the clouds. Honestly did not expect this to be contested, unless you're confusing shipping with existing.
 
Rubbish, I challenge you to prove that the T2 was demanded by customers. And I mean specifically T2 and how it's implemented, not just "better security". Apple did this of their own will through their design process and focus on making secure devices.
 
Windows is now requiring TPM through their own design process and focus on improving security standards.
 
The double standards here is neck breaking.
 
And it require more to support both, not less nor the same. You well missed the point here.

Cillit Bang is a viable option but you will need to thoroughly flush it, you can also go and buy phosphoric acid and use that - that's what Mayhem's use for their Blitz Part 1 in a concentration of up to 9%. You'll dilute it down to ~2% max concentration. Blitz part 2 is ... well .. a base with some cleaning additives. Thoroughly (!) flushing the system with water should be just as good. Can't come up for any reason, why it wouldn't. If you want to be very sure, you could go for a sodium solution. That will neutralize the pH as well. But you'd probably introducing more contaminants as well and need to flush thoroughly at the end as well so ...
 
To just remove all cleaning residue, I like to just unscrew to shower head and push it onto on of the port. That basically pressure flushes everything with tap water. Then some thorough runs of distilled water and everything is good.
 
When handling potent acids proper safety precautions are mandatory! Protect your eyes! Wear acid resitant gloves! When diluting the acid: first the base (water) and then the acid, NEVER the other way around!
 
P.S.: Cillit Bang also has some phosphoric acid in it - that makes it such a good cleaner.

You can try the DIY method.
 
(shake well with each step)
 
Fill with hot water (boiled 1st preferably), let it sit for 5 minutes, then empty
then
Fill them with Vinegar, preferably white as it makes it easier to see whats coming out (brown works to though). Let them sit for 5-10 minutes. Then empty and flush with water.
then
Make a solution of water + baking soda (make sure its fully dissolved), fill the rads shake well and empty.
then
Flush with running water (can be tap water) a few times
then
Final flush with distilled making sure whats coming out is clear with no particulates.
 
I've done this myself, it works.

Make sure to add some anti corrosive and anti bacterial stuff to the loop next time prevents this usually. Or buy a fluid with it in it already.
 
You can technically use any pipe cleaner that is compatible with the metal you use.

There is only one tape that can fix any leak!
 

Yeah. You use the EK-VGA Supremacy (that's the only waterblock I can find that'll work for this card) to actively cool the GPU core, and you use thermal glue to glue on heatsinks on the GDDR5 ICs and MOSFETs to provide cooling.
 
But why would you want to go through the trouble of water-cooling the Quadro P4000 to begin with?

Windows 10 is not heavy. I'm using it on frigging ASUS Transformer with Atom Z8300 series quad core, 2GB RAM and 64GB eMMC SSD and it's perfectly usable for casual use. It's only really slow because of crap eMMC storage. Laptops with regular quad core of any sort, 4GB RAM and any kind of SSD, even DRAM-less if it's not absolute junk will run flawlessly.
 
And while I'm privacy concerned, people don't seem to differentiate telemetry from spyware and data hoarding. Google's data mining is pretty much purely for making money which makes it much more evil than actual telemetry used by Microsoft. Sure, they might collect things you don't want them to, but Windows is a very big and complex OS, it'll eventually happen one way or the other. But they can have a huge insight on what's happening with systems using telemetry. I mean, if large number of systems install an update and then suddenly start to spew bunch of errors, Microsoft can react to the situation proactively. Instead of waiting for word to come around from tech support, forums to MVP's and news sites to tip them off about problems. That's real telemetry. Reason they made it mandatory is because they sacked 3/4 of their QA department. Only way to compensate for that is to rely heavily on telemetry.
 
If you still don't like it, there are means to disable it. Either by hacks or simply using DNS blocking like I'm using.

Nvidia: "we're finally stopping support for kepler GPUs on windows after 9 years"
 
LTT forum: "THREAD MENTIONED WINDOWS?????? Time to shit on Windows!!!!"
 
 
14 replies, 0.5 addressing the actual topic. Seems about right...

It's not common just because it happened to you...

Yeah Im imagining most PSU makers will hop on with a daughter board that snaps directly to the front of the PSU. - I could even imagine basically an ATX sized "shell" that a SFX sized 12VO PSU snaps in.

Now I could only hope and wish that PSU makers standardize their modular cables during this time. It be nice if I didn't have to worry which cable was compatible with what PSU.

Zen3+ APUs is even less likely than the last Zen3+ rumor. Zen3 APUs literally just released within the last month and are still in OEM only status. Mobile APUs are only 4 months old so also highly unlikely.

GPU's right now basically don't exist.
 
The iGPU in the 3400G is capable of playing less demanding indie games and some eSports stuff adequately. 

-= Topic Locked =-
 
Thread and OP is political.

Summary
Greg Kroah-Hartman, the maintainer of the Linux Kernel's stable branch, has banned anyone using a University of Minnesota email address from contributing to the open-source Linux kernel. Researchers from the university had been submitting patches that were "known-buggy" to judge the communitiy's reaction to them. Without informing anyone of what happened, the researchers then published a paper on the topic.
 
Quotes
From one of the researchers:
 
In response to the above message, Greg Kroah-Hartman said:
 
Update: The university's "CS&E" department released this statement:
https://cse.umn.edu/cs/statement-cse-linux-kernel-research-april-21-2021
 
My thoughts
This is quite an unfortunate waste of Kernel maintainer's time. Even though the way the research was conducted is extremely questionable ethically (the researchers did not consider this human research even though humans were directly involved), there is still something to learn from this. The fact that the researchers' activities were not noticed until after the paper was published does show that it can be difficult to try and catch bad actors in an open-source project. Of course, this is not a new issue for open projects, the general solution as it has always been is more people and tools looking out for bad actors.
 
Sources
The mailing list thread where the above quotes were found:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah.com/
Articles about the thread:
https://www.neowin.net/news/linux-bans-university-of-minnesota-for-sending-buggy-patches-in-the-name-of-research/
https://fosspost.org/researchers-secretly-tried-to-add-vulnerabilities-to-linux-kernel/
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=University-Ban-From-Linux-Dev
The research paper in question:
https://github.com/QiushiWu/QiushiWu.github.io/blob/main/papers/OpenSourceInsecurity.pdf

If not more, the actual market price for the other Eth ASIC depending on when and how much you want it is between 10k USD to 50k USD. These products are basically exclusively for them, their friends and associates and anyone else in the inner circle. They only bother to announce the hardware to disrupted and affect the market, I'm like 90% sure they are trying to lower the GPU market value with this, you know so their purchase price is lower because they still GPU mine.

Aka it failed to validate as a very high multi thousand dollar enterprise GPU and has no further use to exist so rather than recycling the die, at greater expense, Nvidia is finding a way to sell it.

This were an interesting thread to read.... (A lot of Rosetta 2, Apple, and general back and forth about RISC-CISC misconceptions...)
 
First of, my opinion if ARM is the future.
ARM isn't really the future, and I will get into why.
X86 is largely going to remain in the Desktop and Laptop scene, and most likely going to stay relevant in servers. (Not that ARM is the main competitor here...)
RISC-V is currently taking a stranglehold of ARM's embedded applications. (Change is though exceptionally slow in the embedded world, I know plenty of embedded applications that use 30 year old processors...)
 
The reason for why ARM isn't really the future is similar to why Linux isn't the go to OS for people in general.
ARM isn't really "an ISA", but rather a family of somewhat similar instruction set architectures, though their differences makes it fairly hard to just port software from one to another.
For an example, SoC used on the early Raspberry Pi's can't run Android, despite that Android runs on "ARM" and the Raspberry Pi has an "ARM" processor.
 
ARM is fairly fragmented, similar to how Linux is fragmented between many different distros having their own pros and cons and compatibilities.
 
X86 on the other hand isn't. One can take code written for it in the late 70's and "just run it" on modern processors. (not really for "security" reasons.)
Similar story for PowerPC IIRC...
RISC-V haven't been around long enough yet to show fragmentation, but given its open source nature and generally scatterbrained approach to targeting applications and development, then it will likely fragment like a fine vase falling off the Empire state building. (Just my 2 cents though. Though, RISC-V is currently focusing on the "embedded side" with laser focus, currently worming its way to replace the ESP32. The IoT chip of choice.)
 
Next we have the RISC/CISC misconceptions.
Higher end ARM processors aren't really RISC in their implementations these days.
Though, some people think that microcode on X86 makes it a "RISC" architecture. It is like saying that Burj Khalifa is a tiny house (a building with less than 25m^2 of floor area) just because one removed its antenna. (the antenna makes up 30% of it's height.) It wouldn't be unfair to say that X86 is the most instruction rich architecture in common use, removing a bunch through microcode doesn't impact it much. (Not that instruction count is the only factor differentiating RISC and CISC architectures. It is also defined by overall system complexity and how the code is required to interact with various resources.)
 
In regards to power efficiency, RISC isn't a silver bullet, neither is CISC, it depends greatly on the application being used and how well optimized it is for the architecture one runs it on. (the software needs to be equally optimized on both platforms, otherwise it is an unfair comparison for logical reasons.)
In regards to performance, it is a similar story.
From a pure computer science standpoint on the other hand, then a well optimized CISC architecture will always offer more performance for less energy than a RISC architecture. But there is plenty of practical reasons for why this isn't a usable argument in practice.
 
Then we have the "RISC architectures are more memory intensive."
It depends a bit on the application, a RISC architecture does indeed have simpler instructions. But this doesn't prevent a RISC architecture from implementing instruction compression, commonly known as microcode. Since microcode extrapolation is done in the core itself, therefore the application can use a smaller amount of memory bandwidth due to not needing to specify each individual step in the larger procedure. Instruction compression is used in most architectures. Be it ARM, RISC-V, PowerPC, or even x86. (Using microcode to break down more complicated instructions into a string of simpler one's is another topic, technically the same thing though.)
 
At least I haven't seen anyone in the thread say: "RISC architectures can execute code with fewer instructions!" since that is incorrect in most cases, but not always. (Since RISC/CISC doesn't state much about the implementations ability to handle out of order execution, and how many ports it can send out instructions over in a given cycle, nor how long it takes for a task to complete, etc. In short, a RISC architecture has fewer different instructions to implement and can therefor usually spend more of its transistor budget on making more copies of the instructions it does have, giving particular performance increases for applications making heavy use of those simpler instructions. Though, a CISC architecture can usually outperform if its more complicated instructions are actually used. In short, RISC is good if one doesn't optimize one's code much. It is also usually easier for a compiler to make code for a RISC architecture than a CISC one, but this post is already fairly long so I will spare you the details.)
 
For higher performance applications, X86 will remain fairly uncontested. Even if an ARM based system is currently the leader on the Top500 list. (But here the PowerPC architecture is already competing heavily with x86 as is. But this is for other reasons outside of the RISC/CISC debate. PowerPC has a lot of interesting HPC oriented features that is a topic in and off itself...)
 
That Microsoft has tons of software using x86 isn't actually an all that major reason for X86's dominance on the market. Microsoft products makes up a sizable section of the X86 market, but very far from all of it, especially in the server section.
 
I somehow wants to go into more detail, but I don't think a deeper dive into architectures is really needed here, since it would just go off topic and open up more questions than answers to how nuanced the RISC/CISC topic is.
 
In the end.
I don't suspect ARM to actually be all that competitive in the PC space.
One can't really look at overall market share as indicative of the future either. The system requirements for a phone/tablet or even a TV isn't the same as in a desktop computer. And the same applies for both the embedded (this is though a whole category of sub categories, saying "embedded" is about as specific as saying "food" when talking about different recipes) and HPC world. Different applications have different requirements. ARM isn't really the tool that the PC scene is looking for, especially if one pushes some more compute heavy applications.