balding_ape

Member
  • Content Count

    2239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About balding_ape

  • Rank
    Moderator

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    eCthonia
  • ICQ
    157408076

Profile Information

  • Location
    Northwest of Philadelphia, PA, USA
  • Interests
    Hobbyist computing, corn snake keeping, avid reader, fantasy roleplaying, and tinkering with my house.
  1. balding_ape

    Really old members... with really low post counts

    Yes sir, MS in Communication (conc. in Technical). Been a heck of a lot of fun and work so far.
  2. balding_ape

    Document usability test

    Hello all, I know I've been gone for a while, but I've been pretty busy with school. I've come back for the fairly mercenary purpose of getting some reviewers to help with a small usability test for a document I've created for a document design class at school. In brief, it is a PDF containing five sets of criteria that define particular scores in five categories. You read the criteria and then read the document. After you read the document, you decide the score (from 1-4) you will assign to each category. Then you can either PM me or post here the results. I very much encourage any comments you may have, as those are often even more helpful than objective scores. Here is the URL for the PDF: http://baldingape.net/help/HolisticScoringSystem.pdf Here is the URL for the document you will review: http://baldingape.net/help/phpbb.htm Thanks *very* much for your help! Regards, Andrew
  3. balding_ape

    What is better for a server: SCSI or SATA?

    I'd just like to place this thread in context. User claim: every WD drive the poster has used has failed within six months -- *every single one*. User conclusion: WD drives are crap and WD lie about their MTBF number. If every single one failed within six months, what is the more likely condition: (a) Something is wrong with WD drives and they are crap. Anyone using them for 24/7 operations will have nearly 100% of drives fail within six months. ( Something is wrong with the power, systems, handling, or environment of the drives that is causing 100% to fail within 6 months at this location. I'll leave it to the rest of the readers to draw their conclusions as to the reliability of the user's conclusion about WD drives.
  4. balding_ape

    Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...

    Dear Wall Street Journal Readers: We at the WSJ know that you value reliable information and insightful commentary. We regret that some articles designed to correct the false impressions offered by hybrid vehicle marketing are themselves just as flawed as the content they criticize, merely in the opposite direction. It is our position that by balancing the issue thus, you our readers will be able to make the correct inferences through this process of balancing. Thanks, Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
  5. balding_ape

    The 160 GB Barracuda 7200.9

    "It" in bold above referring to the current iometer server test methodology.
  6. balding_ape

    The 160 GB Barracuda 7200.9

    Results more or less as expected, though I was a bit surprised by the signficant seek time changes. This sort of variable-capacity testing brings up interesting questions to me in terms of server methodology. How reasonable is it to test the entire drive of one versus the entire drive of another, regardless of capacity (which is what iometer currently does, IIRC)? For a file server, database server, web server, the performance of a drive is always going to be relevant only for a given chunk of data. So it completely masks any advantages newer, larger generations have compared to older, smaller generations, or any comparisons we may do amongst varying capacities within a generation. Obviously, this is not terribly critical for the desktop drives. Pardon me if this has already been discussed at some point...I've been out of the loop for a while.
  7. balding_ape

    CPU usage with Firefox

    Nice to see you about, FS. I'm with you...much more of this, and I'll make a move to Opera. Thanks for the tips, MSB...I'll give that a shot.
  8. balding_ape

    Games women play

    Personally, I think we all play games. We don't have a choice; no one always says what they mean, or even knows what they mean or want. Some of us play games more deliberately than others, of course. According to my experience, what you describe, Chewy, is not uncommon: one or both partners often "re-engage" (it doesn't seem to matter who was the relationship "breaker," either party may initiate). The easiest examples for me are from college, where it was easy to observe a lot of fairly committed relationships from close range (due to enforced proximity of school). One of my roommates broke up with his girlfriend of 6-8 months, and for a month or two afterwards, they would periodically end up in each others' beds. I saw the same kind of pattern with several couples. The one time my girlfriend and I broke up (she later became my wife), we sort of got back together once after about a week or so. However, we didn't speak after that (for a mostly unrelated reason) for a few months. I don't even remember how we got back together...it was sort of a gradual thing.... Anyway, both of us played many games...our relationship has been a struggle for understanding (and the invalidation that comes from not understanding) and, at times, will. I don't think any of this is abnormal; we love each other very much, but communication is difficult, so we have some struggles.
  9. balding_ape

    CPU usage with Firefox

    I should probably be more specific and say that I'm not actually DOING anything with Fx at the time this happens. I just look down, and my CPU is pegged, Task Manager indicates Fx is the guilty party, and Fx itself acts like a person trying to sprint underwater (assuming it doesn't just stay frozen for about 3 minutes before resuming said slow progress). After 5 or so minutes of use, the slowness goes away, but the CPU usage is pretty much there to stay.
  10. balding_ape

    CPU usage with Firefox

    I've been using Fx since around .7 or so. I've been getting progressively annoyed by a feature that I first noticed somewhere near 1.0 release: if I leave Fx open on my PC for a long time (days -- which I often do), it will almost invariably reach a point where something happens and Fx decides it needs 80-100% of my CPU power, and it's EXTREMELY slow to react, if I can get it to react at all. I close out entirely, reopen, and I'm usually fine. This happens on both my laptop and my desktop (both run XP Pro). Anyone else suffer from this?
  11. Below where you read the details of the report, a list of most fragmented files should appear. Is there anything there?
  12. balding_ape

    3 Gb/sec or 300 MB/sec?

    What is 3 gbit/s? That's like saying fast ethernet is 10 gbit/s because the cable can move the bits that fast but it's the adapter that slows it down to 100 mbit/s. It's like saying a sector is 544 bytes instead of 512 although those 32 bytes are taken up by ECC and other stuff. I'd say it's more like listing HDDs as 40GB when the OS only shows 38. But it's not even that -- because as I said, the number is unimportant. You'll never see it reached on that interface. It's irrelevant. And even if you DID see it reached, and the interface was maxed out, you wouldn't notice much difference, if any. So part of me thinks that the whole issue of what they call it is irrelevent. If I wanted to complain about something, it would be the use of the interface speed to advertise the drive at all. It's SATA, or SATA2, or ATA, etc. Pretending that 3 Gbps or 300 MB/s versus 1.5 Gbps or 150 MB/s makes any performance difference is what is misleading. Not the 2 bits of error correction.
  13. balding_ape

    3 Gb/sec or 300 MB/sec?

    It *is* 3Gb...there's no lie there. It's the error checking bits that make it 300 MB/s rather than 375 MB/s. Of course, in my humble opinion, the whole issue is sort of a non-issue, because no one will see the difference between 300 MB/s and 375 MB/s. Drives can't push it that hard, and are unlikely to be able to do so anytime soon. And of course, even if they could make that speed, one doubts that consumers would notice a difference. So to me, it's pretty much all a bunch of hooey. Might as well be 150 MB/s or 10,000 MB/s.
  14. balding_ape

    Hard Drives alchemy....

    Sheesh, at least link the poor guy to the FAQ. Maybe even give him a link to information to clear up his apparent confusion on RAID.