yousif7733

Intel should make GPUs like this.
 

 
 
On a side note, this thing actually works pretty good, you just have to check the fans for rubbing after you install it.

I acknowledged earlier that AMD's approach leads to manufacturing and planning simplicity, but it is a tradeoff against silicon area efficiency. AMD's approach works best for very high core counts, and is forward looking. But this doesn't negate the need for lower core count parts, and Intel's approach is more silicon efficient within the limits of the process they're stuck on.

Reselling them definitely is if the prices were region locked.
You're profiting from prices that were designed to meet the needs of an impoverished population, which frankly is a bit disgusting, and Microsoft made significantly less money for a license than they would have had you gone through proper means; Microsoft also makes exactly nothing from the resale, which goes to compete with legitimate stores that have distribution deals with Microsoft, undercutting the profits of both.
 
I have little respect for Microsoft, but honestly paying a blood sucking middle man that did nothing to earn said money, pays none of the taxes a storefront would and leeches off of an effort to make a product more affordable for people who couldn't buy it otherwise irks me. Since it's illegal anyway I'd say piracy gets the moral high ground here and I have no doubt Microsoft would agree.
 
Furthermore, you have no way of knowing if the key was smuggled like you suggested or straight up stolen, which has been shown multiple times to actually hurt the developer's bottom line a lot more than piracy. Some developers have even come out and said explicitly that they'd rather have you pirate their product than buy it from a key reseller.

First of all, monopolies are self perpetuating; most computers run windows, therefore most software is for windows, therefore most computers run windows. This is not a case of the competition just "not being good enough", it's a case of Microsoft actively preventing them from ever becoming competitive from an unfair position of power.
 
Secondly, even if there was no competition or all competition was just as bad that doesn't mean what Microsoft does is acceptable. And most importantly, competition is NOT our only hope of fighting this because we can legislate against it. So no, we don't just have to take what the monopoly gives us.
 
As for the idea that "game companies don't like Linux", that's absurd. Game companies will spend their development time on whatever platform they think will make them money, and that platform by default is Windows due to its omnipresence. Again, the monopoly perpetuates itself.
 
And it's not true that you need to use the command line to do everything or, in fact, anything on a modern Linux distribution. There are even graphical frontends for package management, which by the way is drastically superior to what you need to do on Windows to install (let alone update) something as commonly used as a vlc. The things you absolutely need the command line for are the same things you'd need it for on Windows, except on Linux the command line is actually good.
 
Actually I may have lied, it's true that Macs are overpriced.

Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that you weren't.
Funny, I've used Windows 10 for close to 4 years now, and I have never used a MS account.
That only matters if you're using a retail license and want to transfer it to another computer.  OEM licenses - even ones you've bought yourself - are tied to the specific motherboard.  That said, if it's an OEM license that you've purchased, it's entirely possible to transfer that license by activating over the phone (assuming it doesn't just let you reactivate over the internet).
 
Regardless, you don't need a MS account to reactivate Windows 10.  If you need to reinstall, you don't even need to type in your license key, as Windows will detect the hardware (specifically: motherboard) in your system and reactivate itself automatically, even when using a local login.
Unless you're talking about the next version that hasn't been released yet, it's certainly not necessary to use an Apple ID to upgrade the MacOS version.  I've upgraded several laptops to Mojave without an Apple ID.
Password issues occur, regardless.  I just had an instance where a lady with an iPad got the Apple account locked out, because of not knowing the password.  Didn't help that she had two separate Apple ID accounts on the same iPad - and didn't know either password - along with at least two (maybe three) different e-mail accounts.  Not to mention her Facebook account, which was a whole other password.

Yeah I am not going to bend over to the monopoly. Its TempleOS for me!

MS just keep on getting lower and lower, when you think there is no way this can get any worse they always prove you wrong.....

This is not true. It's entirely possible to install a distro like Ubuntu and do "everyday tasks" without having to use the terminal once.
It just depends on what your definition of "everyday tasks" is. Most people I know would not need the terminal because they do little more than web browsing and use an office suite.
 
 
I don't think they are any different, other than some functionality being disabled (by default) if you don't use a Microsoft account such as clipboard syncing.
Not sure what you mean with the last part but I assume it's "why are people critizing Microsoft for this? Would you say the same thing if Google made it mandatory for Android" and I think the answer to that is yes. I would not be pleased if Google all of a sudden started requiring an online account to use your phone.
But there is a big difference here. We have never really had good privacy and options on our phones. If you get a smartphone it's kind of understood that it will suck in terms of options and privacy (at least with Android). However, we are used to it being decent on PCs.
I think it's a bigger blow (and news) when one sector goes backwards and makes a product worse (if you think dark patterns is a step back, which I think it is) by limiting options and choice. Going from decent to bad is a bigger punch than going from bad to slightly more bad.

Friendly reminder that you can not compare the # nm from one plant to another. 
Intel 10nm is very different from TSM 10nm for example. 
 
Also a friendly reminder that you can not use two different processors with different architectures to compare the lithography. If you do then you're changing too many variables to accurately narrow down what is actually causing the difference in thermals, clocks, IPC, latency, power consumption, etc. 

As with a lot of codecs these days, the problem all comes down to support and licensing.
HEVC and by extension HEIF is a complete licensing nightmare so bad basically all large companies has come together to create AOMedia and get rid of horrible codec licensing.
With a bit of luck we will get widespread support for AVIF, which is single frame AV1 inside the same container as HEIF uses. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Adobe, Netflix, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and many more has already signed up to support it. Hell, Windows already supports it if you download the media extension Microsoft has released in the store.
 
As for WebP, legal threats (MPEG members threatening to sue for patent infringements) scared people from using it initially, and support didn't arrive until very recently. It's a chicken and egg problem. Why support a format nobody uses? And who would use a format nobody supports?
Facebook experimented with WebP but got a lot of negative feedback because "the picture I downloaded from Facebook would not be opened on my computer", so they pulled the plug.
 
 
By the way, Samsung phones can take HEIF pictures. It's off by default though because of the lack of support ok other phones/websites/etc. 

This is a great love in the right direction. 
This, plus the chance to copyright claims having to specify exactly which part of the video contains copyrighted material, and editing tools to remove it, is fantastic news. 
 
It will hopefully reduce the number of crazy claims by a lot. 

I have been called paranoid on this very forum for saying that. 
 
But it's always like this. First you get paranoid for questioning and investigating things, then once things hit the mainstream media everyone goes "oh, everyone knew about that already". 

Haven't read the conversation between you and the other people so maybe I'm repeating what others have said here, but yes, this camera module can combine multiple pixels into a larger one.
 
 
Quick primer for those interested:
 
Each pixel in your camera sensor is dedicated to capture a specific color. Red, green or blue. It's similar to how your monitor works.
To make this work, a filter is put on top of the sensor which filters the specific colors to a specific pixel on the sensor. So one pixel will capture red light, one captures green light and one captures blue light. The filter also has twice as many green pixels as red and blue ones (because we humans are more sensitive to green color).
The filter looks like this in most cameras:
 
Up until quite recently, the Bayer filter in cameras have looked like this:

 
 
This new Samsung sensor has "Tetracell technology", which is another word for "Quad Bayer", which is another word for 2x2 pixel binning.
The Bayer filter in this Samsung sensor, and some newer Sony sensors, looks like this:

 
As you can probably tell, it's very easy to combine the information captured by 2x2 pixels and representing them as a single pixel when creating the image.
That's why this 108 megapixel camera is said to capture 27 megapixel images.
 
 
So the question becomes, why have 4 times the pixels if you're just going to bin them 2x2 anyway? Especially since the filter does cut some light out, and as a result four 0.8 x 0.8μm pixels won't capture as much light as one 1.6 x 1.6μm pixel.
Why have a filter that looks like this:

instead of this?:

 
 
 
The biggest benefit I can think of would be reduced noise.
 
You've probably seen some pictures that look like this:

This is a "noisy" image. The random dots of colors that are all over the image is called "image noise" and it's caused by a wide variety of factors but all of them are essentially the sensor picking up signals it shouldn't, such as heat from the sensor itself and it thinks that's light information.
 
In a camera with large but few pixels, each pixel becomes very crucial to the final image. If one pixel reports a certain value, that value must be assumed to be correct and can not be discarded because that would leave a big hole in the image. If a green pixel reports a value of 100, then the camera will assume that pixel got hit by a ton of light and make that part of the image very green, even if it's actually just heat it's picking up.
 
In a quad Bayer sensor, you got the value from 4 pixels to compare. If 3 out of 4 green pixels in a cluster reports a value of 40, and one reports a value of 100, it can be safely assumed that one pixel was picking up interference and the data it collected can be discarded in favor of the other 3 pixels which reported 40.
 
 
 
It is also better for detecting sharp edges. If the 2 leftmost pixels in a 2x2 cluster reports a very high value, and the to rightmost pixels reports a low value, we can assume that a sharp vertical edge is detected right in the middle of our 2x2 cluster. This means we can try to retain a sharper edge when doing our de-mosaic and other filtering.
A sensor with one large pixel would most likely just end up reporting a middle-of-the-road value and we get fuzzy edges on stuff.
Not sure how much of a benefit this is though since at the end of the day, when downscaling to 27MP you will have to compromise anyway.
 
 
A third benefit is single-shot HDR.
HDR traditionally works by taking two or more individual images, one with high and one with low exposure, and then combining the two.
With this, it's possible to have 2 out of the 4 pixels in a cell have high exposure, and the other 2 pixels have a low exposure.
This 108MP camera can take two 27MP images with different exposure values and combining them into a single image, with just 1 exposure. That means faster capture, and less risk of blurry images because your hand or the subject moved between shots.

Oh I see.
I don't think you can get smaller pixels added together to give a higher light response than a larger pixel (although I haven't read your links yet so I might be wrong). Like I said, the Bayer filter itself cuts out some light (at least from what I know) so physically, less light is hitting the sensor the more pixels you got.
 
But think of it this way. Why do we want more light hitting the sensor? To get a clear signal without noise. How do we do that? We have traditionally kept the ISO low. But these new quad Bayer cameras allow for much better noise reduction, which means keeping the ISO low is no longer as important. The result is that a quad Bayer sensor needs less light hitting it than a traditional Bayer filter camera for the same noise and brightness level.

Derp you're right. Should probably change that part of my post. 
 
You're spot on. It's technically true, but you can't compare it to a traditional camera. It's best to just think of this as a 27MP camera really, but with some extra features. That's probably the mode it will perform best in anyway. 
 
 
Thanks! This was somewhat new to me too so I found it interesting to research. 
It also explains why they are stuck with 2x2 sampling. I saw someone else on another forum talking about if it would be possible to do 3x3 sampling for even better low-light shots but sadly it's not. Maybe that will be the next step. I think that would result in a more usable resolution, since 27MP is still quite a lot. 
 
 
I don't think they tried to say it's competitive with the GFX100. They mentioned it because it also has a 100+ MP count. 

On one hand this seems sudden. 
On the other hand, this change only affects those who are running the most up to date and quite fast phased release. 
I'd say thst there is an argument to be made that if people don't want large changes to happen somewhat frequently then there is always the long term support version. This change won't happen in that, and it will be supported until 2023. So you could argue that they have given a 4 year notice. 
 
But personally I think they could have given info about it sooner. 

Because the 32bit libraries are becoming obsolete. They don't get updates as quickly and support in the toolchains have gotten more and more rare.
You basically have to go out of your way to make it 32bit using standard GNU/Linux tools these days.
 
The reason why developers should "waste their time" is because it keeps their users safe by not relying on libraries which doesn't get as much attention as the 64bit counterparts, and because we have slowly been moving towards 64bit-only ecosystems for quite a while now. It's something that will happen sooner or later.
 
 
That's the one thing that might be affected by this change.
Outdated programs which are no longer in development, and that doesn't bundle the necessary libraries themselves. But like Canonical said, Valve might include a container with 32bit support. Games is probably the biggest group of applications that might be affected by this since they re usually closed source, not developed with GNU/Linux in mind, and a lot of them are no longer in development.
 
 
Nope, not really. Seems to me like it's mostly a move to get people to focus on 64bit applications and get rid of a lot of work maintaining 32bit support. Making an optional package to download would defeat that purpose.

Fun fact: Windows 10 32bit still includes support for 16bit programs if you enable NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine).

There is a slight possibility that your cable is bad and that's causing packets to need to be resent, but the likelihood of that is pretty low.
Chances are the problem is somewhere else.

Before this conversation goes on I want to point out that mr moose is specifically talking about what is running in the background, and I am not sure jagdtigger is talking about that or just all the UWP programs in general.
I mean, Candy Crush does not run in the background as soon as your computer starts, but lots of people, including me, wants to get rid of it anyway because it's annoying to have.
 

I am not entirely sure, but I believe you only need to provide a way to delete the data in order to comply with GDPR. Thst way could for example be contacting them through email.
 
 
They do business with European citizens so yes, they need to comply with European laws. 

Probably stuff like Candy Crush Saga and other apps Microsoft bundles with Windows 10.

1) No, ignoring update prompts and turning automatic updates off are not the same things. The former can still be done in Windows 10, but the later can not except certain editions. What I want is a way to turn automatic updates off, and that is specifically what you have been arguing against. We have never argued over whether or not someone should be able to ignore an update prompt.
Stop moving the goalpost.
 
2) The article you linked did not prove or state that people ignore update prompts either. What it showed was that people were slow to install updates, but if you look at the studies and surveys the article used as sources you will see that they included programs which didn't even have a fully automatic update mechanism to begin with.
People being slow with manually installing updates is not the same as people turning automatic updates off, and the former is not evidence for the latter.
 
 
That was one tweet. If you look at the surveys a bit closer rather than that quite heavily biased article intercepting the survey for you, you will find that only 7 out of 294 "average users" replied that they did not like automatic updates. The other 97.6% did not say that they disliked automatic updates.
 
I have never argued against the idea that people ignore warning messages. Not once. Because I know they do that.
But that is not what we have been arguing about. What we have been arguing about countless times in the past is that you have said that if we so much as include an option to turn updates off in Windows 10, a large portions of people, average Joes, will go into the settings and turn it off, putting themselves at risk.
That is what we have been arguing about. Nothing else. People ignoring warning message is not evidence that people proactively turn off automatic updates if given the choice. All that proves is that people prefer inaction rather than action, which I strongly believe (and is one of the reasons why I don't think they would turn it off if it was enabled by default).
 
No, that is not how logic works.
That's like saying this article about bigfoot is evidence that bigfoot exists.
It is entirely possible that people may believe something that is wrong, and that those people write articles about their wrong beliefs.
 
 
I strongly believe that most people do not change settings that much outside of the defaults. I believe that if automatic updates are enabled by default then most people will have it at default, even if given an option to turn it off.
I believe that if an antivirus is installed and automatically updated on their computer, configured to do periodic scans in the background, then most people will have an up-to-date antivirus software which does scans on their computers.
 
And let's be clear on one thing. Windows Defender in Windows 7 was not antivirus. It was anti-spyware, and anti-spyware only. And it was run automatically, in the background, so I believe most people had it running on their system. I don't believe people manually turned it off.
 
But my argument doesn't rest on that premise at all.
1) My argument is that I don't believe that it would be a widespread epidemic of people turning off automatic updates in Windows if given the option. All the evidence I have seen points towards people in general not changing things much outside of the default settings. Take Chrome as an example. Almost all Chrome users are on the latest update very shortly after being released and we know this as a fact since browsers report their version to websites they visit. Why do you think barely anyone has turned off automatic updates in Chrome, but is certain people would do it if given the choice in Windows?
2) It's a fact that almost 1/4 of all Windows computers in the world back in 2013 did not have an up-to-date antivirus software running. This is not an issue on Windows 10 because it has a built in one.
3) I said I believed there were other reasons for the drop in malware too. For example one of the biggest security holes on computers is now gone (flash) and more tasks are done in protected environments (browsers). In fact, I said I believed the spread of malware would have dropped independently of new versions of Windows being released. Hell, another argument to throw in my pile of arguments would be that people use their computers less overall. Their smartphones have become their primary computing device.
 
 
Was your only claim that not updating was the cause of the spread of Petya and WannaCry?
Oh, okay. Then I misunderstood your argument. Yes I totally agree that not having the security update installed on their machines is what caused issues for the people who got infected.
What does that have to do with our conversation about whether or not people would disable automatic updates if given the choice?
 
 
I have never said or argued against that. You're once again just making a bunch of assumptions.
I have never made the argument that "installing updates is not important to preventing malware infections". What I have said, over and over again, is that I do not believe, and have not seen any evidence for at all, is that people would turn automatic updates off if given the choice.
 
I believe the proper way of handling updates would be having it turned on by default but have an option to turn it off. I believe that would protect the vast majority of users since they are passive users which wouldn't change the settings, but also provide users with more control which can prevent other issues such as updates breaking things.
 
 
Yes, just like bigfoot articles only exist because he is real. Or anti-vaxx groups only exist because there are issues with vaccines. ?
You can not use the existence of articles as evidence for why they are correct.
 
 
No it didn't.
It claimed that 66% of users did not install updates immediately, but that around 90% of people had it installed "soon after", and the phrase "soon after" is not defined in the article sadly. The amount of people who answered "eventually" or "never" was around 10%, not 66%.
Stop changing the words of the study to fit your narrative.
I am not even sure that study is trustworthy because it was self-reporting. That is to say, the people surveyed might not even have known that things like Chrome were being updated automatically in the background, so they might have answered that as "never".
 
 
I dismissed it because the study included software which did not even have automatic updates. You can't compare a program which requires the user to manually install the update to something like Chrome which does everything for the user.
Of course people won't install updates if they themselves have to install them. The average user is very passive and won't mess with things. That's why I believe they wouldn't just go into the settings and turn updates off. My entire argument is that I don't believe people go around changing things just because they are given the option. I think people tend to leave things on their default settings. For programs that doesn't have automatic updates, that means they won't install updates. For programs that do have automatic updates and it being enabled by default (like Chrome), that means they will install updates.
 
 
Why would people like Jim Carrey write about the dangers of vaccines if it wasn't true?
Clearly the amount of articles about it must mean it is true, right? Because that's clearly how logic works...
(sarcasm)
 
 
 
Nope, not at all.
Provide me with evidence for what we are actually arguing against and I might change my mind. But I will keep dismissing your opinion if all the evidence you base it on is "there are lots of articles about it" and "since people are slow with installing updates manually, I believe a large portion would go into settings and turn automatic updates off if given the choice".

I honestly do not know how I am suppose to respond to this blatant lack of reading comprehension.
 
Windows 7 had a built in anti-spyware service called Windows Defender. It was not a fully featured antivirus software because it only monitored and protected against spyware. You can read about that here under "basic features". It's the first sentence.
 
If you installed MSE in Windows 7, which was a separate download as explained in all the links I have posted, then MSE deactivated Windows Defender since MSE included anti-spyware capabilities and there was no point in running two processes doing the same things. You can read about that under the section called "conversion to antivirus" in the Windows Defender article.
 
Starting with Windows 8, Windows Defender got the same antivirus capabilities as MSE and as a result, MSE essentially became preinstalled starting with Windows 8.
 
Here is another link you should read, this time straight from Microsoft themselves:
 

It's almost impossible to have arguments with you because you do not understand your own sources... You assume something and then hunt evidence that supports that theory. But because you assume that you're right before looking up facts, you often misinterpret everything as fact which supports you, even when they don't.
Did you even read the Wikipedia article you linked? It clearly states that it was built in as Windows Defender in Windows 8 and later.
 
IT WAS NEVER INCLUDED IN WINDOWS 7!
I do not know why it was on your computers, but my guess is that you downloaded it and then didn't remember.
It's so frustrating because your posts are like 99% assumptions, all the time.
 
Here are some sources for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender:
 
Here is a post from me from 2012 when I just so happen to explicitly say that MSE is not installed by default in Windows.
 
And here is a post from me from 2013 where I say Windows 8 now having MSE built in is a good change.
 
 
And check out this article from Computer World:
 
 
If you had MSE on your Windows 7 machine then it's because someone, maybe you, installed it on your computer, or you are misremembering. One thing is clear though. It was never included in Windows 7. If you installed Windows 7 from a regular ISO, such as the one distributed by Microsoft, then it was not included. I even went as far as to install Windows 7 using my ISO in a VM to verify this.