Style over substance

Quite a few students in my school use their laptops during lectures and even class - most of them aren't playing games during classes (though there are some that do), but due to the complex nature of the notes system it's much more convenient to bring your computer down instead.

I observed that glossy screens look nice from the sidelines. That is, it looks nice when you're not the person using it.

We know glossy screens stinks for any actual real work due to an optics phenomenum known as reflection. But who cares as long as it looks good from the outside.

And you're not going to buy a product because you know that it's good, but because you think that it looks good. And after you buy it, you get unsatisfactory performance or loads of problems, but companies dun give a hoot because they got your money already.

This does not work for just glossy LCD screens. Think bigger, think further, think wider. Think of parts that look good on the surface only, parts that spoil easily. Think iPod, think Xbox 360 (RROD), think Mac, think Vista, think any product by Apple and Micro$oft, think of a certain stylish small bright-colored speakers that suffers from surround degeneration, speaking of surround degeneration, think Cerwin Vega, think audio products, think *******, think *****, think *********, etc etc etc.

But hey, you may think that this concept seems familiar. I've covered this before.

Damn right I did. This is the basic concept of marketing isn't it? Making your product look nicer than it actually is.

Style extends widely, it may not be aesthetics, even performance numbers can be considered as style.

Beware, the hand is everywhere.

Search Engine Wars

Seems that StatCounter has some pretty handy statistics services instead of just being a counter that you embed onto your webpage.

We look at the Search Engine Wars statistics today:


With a log size of only 500 entries, we'll have to look at this the percentage way -

89 out of 500, or 17.8% of visitors reached this blog from Google

2, or 0.4% reached this blog from Yahoo

What war? More like rape.

The other 81.8% come from...?

Undervolting

If there was any reason to get a T4200 over a T3200, this has to be it:


And it's a good reason. 2GHz @ 0.975V.

Compared to 1.150V without undervolting, and compared to 1.300V of T3200 (same clockspeed, same cache size, 65nm process) in Acer laptops (I know Intel specifies its voltage at 1.075V-1.175V, but it's Acer, and Acer likes to screw us up and being subpar). (Like here, for example)

Using P=V^2/R,

My T4200 consumes 28% less power at 2GHz compared to un-undervolted (to coin a term), and 43.75% less power than a T3200 from Acer.

That translates into slightly longer battery life (most of the battery drain comes from the LCD backlight and the northbridge) and more importantly, cooler and quieter operation as the fan does not have to spin up that often.

But this chip can definitely do better. A lot more better.

That's the problem of having voltage control limits. Something like multiplier lock, but for voltage adjustments.

Without it, it's easy to reduce power draw by at least 33% at near stock speeds. Just as it is easy to overclock at least 33% at stock voltages, or 50% for the cooler and slower Intel entry-level chips. 28% is so little - my A64 at home is running at 38% reduced power, although with a 14% reduction in top speed.

0.975V is the lowest that Intel allows, and it was too easy to hit. Considering this is a 45nm chip at 2.0GHz, based on a technology that can easily do over 3GHz on 65nm with minimal or no voltage raise, I expect this chip to be stable at 0.9V or less.

Still, it's better than nothing.

Oh, and the reason I only did it now (usually I underclock CPUs the day I get them) is because the Multiplier Management of CrystalCPUID (the function responsible for this) does not work in Windows 7 - one more score for XP.

You may say - it's unfair to the T3200 as I didn't compare it undervolted. But the lowest a T3200 can go is 1.087V - this is the limit imposed by Intel. Or even higher, if that T3200 can runs @ 1.3V. What's the deal here? Well, Intel has a very strange system for the new mobile processors out there, the same VID translates into different voltages for either different CPUs or different mainboards, I can't remember. But I'm sure I've read it somewhere. And it's the problem that affects the 45nm "Penyrn"-based processors, like this one. In fact CrystalCPUID says the lowest voltage setting is 1.087V, but I get 0.975V with it.

Something strange, nothing spectacular, nothing to be proud of, nothing to be flamed about. Just something normal, and get on with life.

Best done by gerbils

"Best results obtained if braiding is done by rare south americian mountain gerbils."

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149323

Ah... the power of nature. Natural is good.

I don't know how a cable braided by gerbils looks like, but I've seen cables done by weasels before. It looks like this:

............

(Please be patient while waiting for the entire flash to load finish, Netfirms isn't exactly a fast host. Any suggestion on a fast host that allows direct-linking and ftp access?)

Goodbye Windows 7, Welcome Back Windows XP.

Apart from being the day of 200th post, yesterday was also the day I switched back from Windows 7 RC to Windows XP. So September 01 also marks the day I first use XP on my laptop. It's also Teacher's Day, but who cares.

Windows 7 was a piece of lard. Incompatible drivers and software, bloated and slow, an interface that looks better than it works, all the advanced settings are almost the same as XP but hidden behind flashy menus meant to either make life easy for beginners or make life hard for both noobs and pros alike. Some functions of XP gone in exchange for features better to be not get used to.

And the most spectacular of all (deserves to be on the front page), it screws the internet connection.

Very interestingly, when I was using the M1 Mobile Broadband, it is very unresponsive and unstable and I cannot download any file without the connection breaking at the 28MB mark. Modem works fine, internet stays connected, but it's just goddamn unstable. And unresponsive - I spend more time waiting for the servers to respond than actually surfing the net. By a factor of a few times.

It's not the modem - as I swapped the modem with my brother. It's not the infrastructure - as his modem is right beside mine.

So, it must be the f*cking OS.

And yes it's true, after returning to XP, my internet is fast again.

Screw u Win 7 RC.

I did lose out on the hardware-accelerated H.264 playback available from Vista and up, but it's a small price to pay for using XP. Although this means that the money I paid for the GL40 chipset is wasted.

And the reason I got Windows 7 in the first place? I mistakenly thought that the SPDIF-out of Acer laptops can only be used with Windows Vista and up. Due to the lack of documentation and the lack of training of the service centre staff.

There's really no need to upgrade your OS unless there's really a need to, like if you have some software that does not run on the previous versions, or there are better functionalities. or if it supports your newer hardware.

Else, you'd be better off sticking to your current OS. I stayed with Windows 98 until around 2005 I think. Furthermore, unless you need the OS to use your hardware effectively, you better don't upgrade unless you have good hardware - 256MB was overkill for Win98 (unless you're playing C&C: Generals, which 512MB is best), but the bare minimum for XP; 1GB is enough for good speed in XP, but barely in Win7.

Now I have a dual-core that requires XP. But nothing else that requires Vista/Win7. So XP's gonna stay for a looong time.

Speaking of which, Microsoft seems to have a 'Tick-Tock' model like Intel, but their Tick-Tock is between products that work and products that don't -

("works" is defined as widespread and prolonged use of the particular product, without being complained too much of bloatedness, incompatibility, and any other complaint that you can throw at Microsoft. Even if a product did not work well at the start, if towards its end of life it gets widely used, then it's still a success. "fail" is the direct opposite: basically nobody would care if this product wasn't released; rather, everybody would be happier if this product wasn't released)

Windows 3.1 - works
Windows 95 - fail (late release + lots of incompatibility + 98 came out)
Windows 98 - works
Windows ME - fail
Windows XP - works
Windows Vista - fail
Windows 7 - *should* work