pointertovoid

Member
  • Content count

    536
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About pointertovoid

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country
  1. Thanks GrofLuigi! I have tried RMClock v2.35 meanwhile. It starts cleanly on W2k and displays much meaningful nformation about my Wolfdale. I was pretty sure that my Cpu's clock stuck at 3.33GHz previously. Since the first time I ran RMClock, and without asking anything special nor seeing anything that would start it a bootup, my Cpu now throttles nicely to 2GHz when less loaded, both on W2k and on Xp - before I ran RMClock on Xp. So either I misread the clock previously, or RMClock made something.
  2. Hello nice people! My Cpu has the Speedstep feature but I didn't find where to enable it. Observations so far: Intels says my E8600 ("Wolfdale" core 2 duo) features it. http://ark.intel.com/products/35605/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E8600-6M-Cache-3_33-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB Cpu-Z observes 3.3GHz all the time. The mobo is a Ga-ep45-ud3r with P45 northbridge, bios upgrade F11. I didn't find any setting nor mention in the Bios. Photographs available. The OS is Xpsp3 (and W2ksp4r1 but that's less important) with vey few updates. I didn't find any mention in the Control Panel. The cpu driver is Intelppm.sys v5.1.2600.5512 hence brought by Xpsp3. I've downloaded RMClock v2.35 but still not tried it because it doesn't mention the Wolfdale processors. Hints, proposals, suggestions, explanations...?
  3. I take good notice. I had a single mobo with Via Pata host which did corrupt the data. At that time and also with later Via hosts, including at the beginning of Sata, many more users noticed data corruption. Since this is THE unacceptable failure, I decided never to have a Via host again. But I did have Via Usb 2.0 / Pci chips that worked nicely. As good as Nec.
  4. I did on previous computers, especially a Pata Win95 laptop, and experimented with W98-Me-2k-Xp. It does bring a lot. It is not obvious, and you can waste a lot of time. Unless you really want to stick to a Pata computer, just buy a Sata mobo and put an Ssd on it. Or put a Sata host in a slot (SiI3124 is by far the best for Pci and also the cheapest; take any board brand) and connect an Ssd. More GB, cheaper, works without the worries. So let's imagine you have no choice and really need a CF. Only one brand and model used to work properly, that was Transcend 300x and 266x in 1GB, 2GB, 4GB and 8GB sizes, not 16GB. These ones were SLC: MLC is MUCH slower and survives fewer writes. Though, Transcend now counterfeits itself and sells bad MLC 300x 8GB, so avoid them. msfn.org/board/topic/171331-fake-transcend-compact-flash-card/ I don't know if the 4GB are still good. You may have better chances with the 266x, which are about as fast as the 300x anyway. Besides SLC, which would be available from Adata and others too, you need buffers working at 5V, and Transcend does this, others not often. CF standards accept 3.3V but Pata does NOT, and is talken in 5V, most CF cards slow down horribly to minimum Uata or even to Pio, and then you have lost, or corrupts data, and you have lost too. On the other hand, the Pata cable and the adapter are unimportant, and you can have two cards on one cable and adapter (worked in my laptop). To install Xp (and I strongly believe 2k too) the card must show the fixed bit. Only some models do it, noticeably the Transcend 266x 300x, Adata and some more. But W95 doesn't need it. Install Windows normally with the Cd, unless you make special experiments by copy-paste. The Windows install Cd checks the integrity of the installation, and this is the best test of your hardware. If the installation fails, don't waste much time with settings, driver choice and so on: it's a very probable sign that your hardware combination does not work, and if you install by copy-paste you WILL have trouble, only later, when you precious documents are on the machine. Failure to install uses to result from the 5V buffers. If you can have several CF in your machine, you could maybe perhaps have a big SLC for files written seldom, like the applications, but NOT your documents, the OS, the paging file, the browser caches. But on an SLC, put the paging file and stay relaxed. I already had raid/0 della muerte (2* Transcend 300x totalling 90MB/s) on a Tualatin+i815ep+Sil0680 (the best Pata on Pci chip) and it brought nothing faster than one CF. Importantisimo: align the volume on page boundaries. Vital for speed, important for the write amplification. With Ntfs you just align the volume on MB, which Windows 95-Xp don't do but GPartEd does. With Fat32 (if you have to) it's more difficult msfn.org/board/topic/151798-does-fat32-align-its-clusters/#comment-968582 If your hardware or Bios limits the disk size, or accesses only through CHS, or can boot only from sector 63, or needs a hibernation file (like my laptop), expect serious trouble.
  5. Sounds reasonable. I had just hoped to find sometthing as easy to install and use as Javascript on Firefox, which was a good surprise. I'll read the list, try to pick the proper compiler and install it. Thanks!
  6. At the Pata era, Via was unable to produce a working host chip. All their chips corrupted the data. It was not a matter of tuning, driver, whatever - just flawed chip design. The best explanation is that their Sata chips too are just as flawed, and Sata1 likely isn't much better than Sata2 setiing. So just keep away from any disk host by Via: these people don't know how to design them. But have Via Usb 2.0 chips, these work. Put your disks on the Promise chip only. And use Sata mode on it, at full throttle, because with Pata you lose the simultaneous and out-of-order multiple requests, which do make a difference. More so with mechanical disks, but with Ssd too.
  7. Thank you once again, Jaclaz! Downloaded, installed and briefly tried. It does run on W2k, and claims to works with W95, nice. It does already more than what I sought but it does it well and is quick to learn. Very seducing. Maybe I use it for htm instead of a text editor. Other suggestions still welcome!
  8. Thanks Tripredacus! That's clearer. And is there any known weakness in the GCM mode of AES provided by Firefox? I've seen it's a pseudorandom sequence mode (sequence xor plaintext = cyphertext), which is **** difficult to program without introducing weaknesses. For a month, Yahoo uses a new login page, where I first type my identifier, and then the page refreshes and I type my password. So if the pseudorandom sequence is somehow linked between both uses by the same page, for instance if it's identical, the user loses. An attacker knowing the identifier and hearing the connection deduces the pseudorandom sequence then the password. I don't see why programmers for encrypted pages go for pseudorandom sequences. Normal modes like codebook or chained codebook are as easy and not so horribly dangerous.
  9. Hello everyone and everybody! When I visit an https website where I provide data that must be encrypted (identifiers for instance), who provides the encryption, among my browser and the website? I attach an example with Firefox used to log at Yahoo. I vaguely imagine that the browser (relying possibly on the OS) provides cryptographic services, the webpage tells "please encrypt the user's identifiers" and "I understands these codes and protocols", then the browser looks for a set of codes and protocols spoken on both sides, then they define and exchange some keys and transfer the data. Is that it? Thank you!
  10. Hi the experts! I've programmed in C and C++ (and older ones) few decades ago, and now I consider writing just one small and dirty code, like 50 lines of recursive integer computations. What I need: Accurate integers with bitlogic, on 64 bits better than 63, but running on 32b Xp and preferibly W2k, and at a good speed, similar to compiled. Apparently, Javascript limits to 50+ bits and Java to 63 bits or even less on 2k-Xp. I don't need an object-oriented language, nor an IDE to develop the code. Text editor <-> Line compiler <-> Console would be OK. But free please. The code is for me, by me only, no documentation planned, and it will run on the developing machine. No GUI for the application, single task, no Avx: things like printf(). I want to spend very little time on installing the interpreter or compiler and learn it and the language. You known, the source libraries, the parameters for W2k target, the runtime links... Javascript was a good surprise in that aspect. So: which one do you recommend? Thanks!
  11. Hello dear friends! Up to now, I've made my htm files with a Wysiwyg editor (Namo), and presently a general text editor (Metapad) for better control of the code. I plan to stay at a text editor but would gladly accept some help from it, like highlight the htm keywords, maybe insert tag pairs and special characters. But not much more: for instance, no automatic saving of images. It must run on Win 2k and Xp, if possible 95b. Which editor do you recommend? Thanks you!
  12. In 3 messages from you I didn't get the answer. I asked "How do the programmers make use of the Sse and Avx" and "what does the programmer need to do, and how autonomous is the compiler?", and got vague and out-of-topic recommendations at the level of a general culture course. Reading the same material in a Press paper I'd regret that the journalist only reproduced some sentences he grasped during a Powerpoint presentation. Meanwhile I got the sought information through varied websites, for instance http://svmoore.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/70583970/VectorOps.pdf http://sci.tuomastonteri.fi/programming/sse http://felix.abecassis.me/2011/09/cpp-getting-started-with-sse/ In case this is helpful to someone else: The programmer can obviously include assembler in his source code. Example here http://neilkemp.us/src/sse_tutorial/sse_tutorial.html which has clear drawbacks, hence the desire for alternatives. Most compilers define extra data types corresponding to the Sse or Avx data packets, and functions that operate on these data types, overloading the usual operators for some functions. It needs a few more conditions ilke data alignment and special keywords. The most convenient is when the compiler recognizes that a portion of source code can run on the Sse or Avx, because it keeps the source easier to read, and an existing source can be recompiled for more recent processors -with luck, present code could even be recompiled in the future when processors offer new possibilities. http://svmoore.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/70583970/VectorOps.pdf on page 8 calls "Automatic vectorization" this autonomous work by the compiler, which isn't widespread, works more or less and can bring worries. Intel's Icc compiler does that and was possibly the first one. Visual Studio 2012 and later try to do it, Gcc too. Over portions of the source that obviously can run on the Sse or Avx, their success rate varies a lot. Vs and Gcc create only the binary for the intended target machine without adding tests for the adequateness of the actual processor. This binary crashes if run on a processor lacking the instructions. Intel's Icc does some tests, but obviously it would have been the programmer's role and is often neglected. Not specific to compilation: Having used Avx256 instructions can make Sse code, or scalar code that runs on the Sse as on the Core, much slower. Only the registers provide the data throughput to feed present compute hardware. The L1 cache suffices in some cases, other caches and the main Ram never with existing processors. The Sse and Avx make that worse. Compute loops must be deeply reorganized according to the caches' possibilities; compilers don't do that alone, so it remains the programmer's duty.
  13. In the cases I consider it's completely a matter of computation speed on double floats. Did you (or someone else) check whether the compiler indeed uses the Sse or Mmx instructions when the programmer writes like double s[], a[], b[]; int i; for (i=0; i<max; i++) s += a*b; or if more detailed indications are necessary? It's not just a matter of the compiler knowing an instruction set. Here the compiler must make some formal transformations which are sometimes easy (here they're), sometimes far less.
  14. Thanks Glenn9999! So, what shall the programmer write so that the compiler uses the Sse or Avx?
  15. Hello dear friends! How do programmers make use of the Sse and Avx? A - I imagine it could be only through the call of library functions that are programmed in assembler. B - Or the programmer could give some (pragma) hint and write a source that suggests strongly how to compile. C - Or, if the compiler is smart enough (Visual C++ impressed me in the Pentium-1 era), it could analyze the source code and detect when loops are parallel enough and produce the faster binary. Example: double s[], a[], b[]; int i; for (i=0; i<max; i++) s += a*b; could be compiled (with additional parity tests on i) as: for (i=0; i<max; i+=2) {s += a*b; s[i+1] += a[i+1]*b[i+1];} if the target machine has the Sse, and with i+=4 if the machine has the Avx256. So what does the programmer need to do, and how autonomous is the compiler? Thank you!