No not wooden logs, contest logs.
Field Day 2009 was great. (photos HERE) The club did well, but not as good as I would have imagined we could do. The DVK setup was a miserable failure. I had to resort to manual phone operation. But still, that aspect did not prevent any contacts. We got the contacts we got (524), and didn't 'lose' any, band conditions were miserable on 40M. More about that in another post...
So it's 2:PM or so on Sunday, and I am shutting stuff down and packing it up, I go to save the log to a USB flash drive, and nada. N3FJP Field Day logging software saves it in the Program Files (i86) folder. So I go looking for them. Nada. Nothing. WHERE'S MY LOG FILES?!?!
Apparently, starting in Vista, Microshaft started 'caching' files in an obscure location. Apparently M$ doesn't trust us to do things normally, so they need to do things abnormally for us. Seems like there is an AppData folder somewhere that contains all sort of 'user' files that we aren't trusted or even allowed to access. It is called 'Compatibility Files' in Microgeek talk.
In my opinion, virtualization is another way for Microsux to say "I know something you don't know"...
The official word on this is that starting in Vista, the rules are that if you don't have explicit (by requesting) elevated permissions to write to C:\Program Files, the system lets you think you are writing there but actually redirects (virtualizes) your writes elsewhere. (or so Scott Hanselman sez...)
On the surface, this sucks in a huge way, especially for ANYBODY in the "where are my files" kind of way. As far as programs on my system, there's a number of "mal-behaved" programs that are getting their writer redirected to the "Virtual Store." Of note are MSN Messenger, the new Nero, and FireFox. I think it is the main reason Win 7 was destroyed (went FUBAR) by Directory Opus 9 a week before Field Day. On a 64-bit system the implications are even worse...
Hanselman also sez:
The other really bad UI issue is that there's no way to get to the compatibility-based Virtual Store from the common file open/save dialogs. The same redirection CAN happen with apps that try to write to registry in HKLM, so watch for that also if something "goes missing."
I can see how hard they're working to make Vista more secure while still maintaining extensive backward compatibility. I haven't had any apps (other than one Java app) bork under Vista yet, but things like this Virtual Store will be confusing until new minor releases of apps with a modicum of Vista-awareness come out.
So where are my logs? When you open Windoze Explorer and you access a folder that has 'virtualized' files, a toolbar button appears that is labeled 'Compatibility Files', click on that button, and voila! There are your files. You can treat them as if they actually exist where you see them...
Showing posts with label 64-Bit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 64-Bit. Show all posts
Monday, June 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Another Laptop Arrives...
New Dell Latitude E6500 15.4" Demo Laptop
First thing I did was wipe XP off it and install Win 7. Now yet again I am struggling with drivers as well as the initial setup. One would think I would learn after awhile...
This machine scores a 4.0 on the Experience Index, lowest performance is the Aero Graphics. Everything else is a 5 or above. I think it is usable. It only has 4G RAM and a 160Gb HD, but so far the laptop isn't too bad. It is heavy though, and size has its advantages as well as disadvantages. There is plenty of audio (more about full-duplex later) and I kinda like the keyboard. There is a really slim power adapter, whose led power-on indicator is a blue led ring around the power plug where it connects to the laptop. Cool, but more glitz I can live without. Probably necessary for those idiots who cannot tell if there is power coming outta their adapter...
The WI-FI adapter is an Intel 5100 AGN, and I am not impressed with its performance. Seems it only connects at 52 mps, where an Intel 4965 will connect from this same spot at 130 mps. I will look into that. It has the obligatory fingerprint swipe device, which I chose not to install drivers for. Biometrics is nice, but I have yet to find a device that doesn't act like a TSR and leak memory like a sieve. Oh well.
Bigger is generally better, but in this case I think it may be a big drawback. If you are looking for a desktop replacement, then sure, this is your baby. If it won't leave your desk (or kitchen table) except for Sunday dinner, then you won't mind how heavy it is. But if you have to carry this to meetings, and then home each day, I think the size and weight is a showstopper. Sure a 15.4" widescreen laptop is nice when you play a movie, or edit a photo, the resolution (1920X1200 WUXGA) makes it shine. But walk a hallway every day with this beast, and I can guarantee you will prefer to take notes with a pencil and paper rather than drag this monster to another meeting.
If I had to buy one for my own use, I would equip it with 8G RAM (doesn't support 16G), the WUXGA display, 500Gb 7200RPM drive and the nVidia NVS graphics adapter. Maybe then I could eek out a 5.0 on the EI, as long as I had the T9800 Core2 Duo. Even better yet, configure an E6400 like that and shed a pound or two minimum. 9-cell batteries, even LI-ION add quite a bit of weight. The E6500 STARTS at 5.17 lbs, with the 4-cell battery and no optical drive. Load it up and it makes a great door stop...
The wireless works better now, I adjusted the 802.11n settings and I consistently get 120-135 mps connect speeds now. All I need to do is test the thruput. That, and test the audio. I will need to get full-duplex working in some sort of fashion in order to use it with the ham radio equipment. I will TRY the default 'listen' control before I start hacking the registry. I promise. All I need to do is find the time...
First thing I did was wipe XP off it and install Win 7. Now yet again I am struggling with drivers as well as the initial setup. One would think I would learn after awhile...
This machine scores a 4.0 on the Experience Index, lowest performance is the Aero Graphics. Everything else is a 5 or above. I think it is usable. It only has 4G RAM and a 160Gb HD, but so far the laptop isn't too bad. It is heavy though, and size has its advantages as well as disadvantages. There is plenty of audio (more about full-duplex later) and I kinda like the keyboard. There is a really slim power adapter, whose led power-on indicator is a blue led ring around the power plug where it connects to the laptop. Cool, but more glitz I can live without. Probably necessary for those idiots who cannot tell if there is power coming outta their adapter...
The WI-FI adapter is an Intel 5100 AGN, and I am not impressed with its performance. Seems it only connects at 52 mps, where an Intel 4965 will connect from this same spot at 130 mps. I will look into that. It has the obligatory fingerprint swipe device, which I chose not to install drivers for. Biometrics is nice, but I have yet to find a device that doesn't act like a TSR and leak memory like a sieve. Oh well.
Bigger is generally better, but in this case I think it may be a big drawback. If you are looking for a desktop replacement, then sure, this is your baby. If it won't leave your desk (or kitchen table) except for Sunday dinner, then you won't mind how heavy it is. But if you have to carry this to meetings, and then home each day, I think the size and weight is a showstopper. Sure a 15.4" widescreen laptop is nice when you play a movie, or edit a photo, the resolution (1920X1200 WUXGA) makes it shine. But walk a hallway every day with this beast, and I can guarantee you will prefer to take notes with a pencil and paper rather than drag this monster to another meeting.
If I had to buy one for my own use, I would equip it with 8G RAM (doesn't support 16G), the WUXGA display, 500Gb 7200RPM drive and the nVidia NVS graphics adapter. Maybe then I could eek out a 5.0 on the EI, as long as I had the T9800 Core2 Duo. Even better yet, configure an E6400 like that and shed a pound or two minimum. 9-cell batteries, even LI-ION add quite a bit of weight. The E6500 STARTS at 5.17 lbs, with the 4-cell battery and no optical drive. Load it up and it makes a great door stop...
The wireless works better now, I adjusted the 802.11n settings and I consistently get 120-135 mps connect speeds now. All I need to do is test the thruput. That, and test the audio. I will need to get full-duplex working in some sort of fashion in order to use it with the ham radio equipment. I will TRY the default 'listen' control before I start hacking the registry. I promise. All I need to do is find the time...
Monday, June 1, 2009
64-Bit versus 32-Bit...
It really is a bigger difference than you think.
The biggest difference I am finding is that manufacturers are very slow to adopt power users who have the where-with-all to install and actually use 64-bit computers. Some are better than others, of course, and generally the software giants like Microslam and Adobe are the leaders of the pack. Or so you would think...
Adobe took years to release a 64-bit Flash Player for browsers, but yet were the first in line to support 64-bit with Lightroom and Photoshop. I guess the software for the masses didn't outweigh the need for the few. But software isn't necessarily all that needs 64-bit support...
Think about the hardware you have and the need for specific drivers that allow that software to work on your 64-bit system. Dell and HP are leaders in the server world, their stuff is used by the giants (Google, Amazon, etc.) and even NASA is starting to gear their smaller stuff toward 64-bit computing. But you cannot run a 64-bit OS unless all your hardware works that is attached to your computer. This means display adapters (video cards) and sound cards HAVE to work, it is imperative that anything you might want to attach to your computer be allowed to function.
This includes perhiperals such as USB devices and printers. Now, Microsnuff has done a pretty good job of including whatever they can find in their newest OS's, but rinky-dink perhiperal manufacturers need to follow suit and either provide the drivers or post them in a place where people can find them such as their corporate website. If they can take the time to provide 32-bit drivers for Vista, there isn't any reason why they can't do the same for 64-bit OS's as well.
But I have seeminly ignored the reasons for running a 64-bit OS, which is why all of you have tuned in to this blog in the first place... SPEED. Not stability, and certainly not to show off in front of all your friends, but pure and simple, speed. The one thing that allows for this vast increase in computing power is the ability to address up to 16G (yes kiddies, that is 16 GIGABYTES) of RAM. 64-bit processors have been around for a while, but no one has really taken advantage of them until recently. The ability to cram 16G of ram on a motherboard has been around even longer, but to actually take advantage of ALL of it has come to life with the implementation of 64-bit processors and Operating Systems.
I can remember Windows Server Datacenter Edition, but it was geared towards multi-processing more that towards 64-bit and gobs of RAM. Now we can have both. But here is where it can get really sticky - What about quad-core CPU's? How do they fit into the mix?
If you think about it, and actually take the time to look at the 25-digit Product Key for your OS you will see that it is a license for 1-2 CPU's. What happens when you have a dual quad-core setup? Isn't that like 8 processors?
Technically - no. In practice, yes. It is actually 2 CPU's with a total of 8 CORES, that is, the ability to hyper-thread 8 different core processes at one time. Now Winslowz has had the ability to multi-process for years, but CORE processes are a much different beast. I am not gonna get into the details, as I have probably put many of you to sleep already with my psychobabble about computers...
Take it for a fact that more cores equals more power. More power equals more processes. More processes equals more programs running at once. And with all the crap running in the background on most computers we all need the most power we can get. At least I know I do... The ability to have enough memory (RAM) for all these applications (processes) is critical, hence the need for a 64-bit OS to be able to address more memory to give our apps more room to work, thereby finishing faster. It all equals SPEED.
And if you don't believe me, take 2 identical 64-bit capable machines whose hardware is configured exactly alike. Install a 32-bit OS on one, and an equal 64-bit OS on the other. (doesn't need to be MS stuff you can do this in UNIX as well) Tell me which one starts up faster, which one runns apps faster and which one can process a job faster. Now I know it has a lot to do with the surrounding sys-systems such as the drive subsystem and the graphics and such, but all things being equal, a 64-bit processor will perform better with a 64-bit OS in comparison to an identical 32-bit setup. Try it, you'll like it.
The biggest difference I am finding is that manufacturers are very slow to adopt power users who have the where-with-all to install and actually use 64-bit computers. Some are better than others, of course, and generally the software giants like Microslam and Adobe are the leaders of the pack. Or so you would think...
Adobe took years to release a 64-bit Flash Player for browsers, but yet were the first in line to support 64-bit with Lightroom and Photoshop. I guess the software for the masses didn't outweigh the need for the few. But software isn't necessarily all that needs 64-bit support...
Think about the hardware you have and the need for specific drivers that allow that software to work on your 64-bit system. Dell and HP are leaders in the server world, their stuff is used by the giants (Google, Amazon, etc.) and even NASA is starting to gear their smaller stuff toward 64-bit computing. But you cannot run a 64-bit OS unless all your hardware works that is attached to your computer. This means display adapters (video cards) and sound cards HAVE to work, it is imperative that anything you might want to attach to your computer be allowed to function.
This includes perhiperals such as USB devices and printers. Now, Microsnuff has done a pretty good job of including whatever they can find in their newest OS's, but rinky-dink perhiperal manufacturers need to follow suit and either provide the drivers or post them in a place where people can find them such as their corporate website. If they can take the time to provide 32-bit drivers for Vista, there isn't any reason why they can't do the same for 64-bit OS's as well.
But I have seeminly ignored the reasons for running a 64-bit OS, which is why all of you have tuned in to this blog in the first place... SPEED. Not stability, and certainly not to show off in front of all your friends, but pure and simple, speed. The one thing that allows for this vast increase in computing power is the ability to address up to 16G (yes kiddies, that is 16 GIGABYTES) of RAM. 64-bit processors have been around for a while, but no one has really taken advantage of them until recently. The ability to cram 16G of ram on a motherboard has been around even longer, but to actually take advantage of ALL of it has come to life with the implementation of 64-bit processors and Operating Systems.
I can remember Windows Server Datacenter Edition, but it was geared towards multi-processing more that towards 64-bit and gobs of RAM. Now we can have both. But here is where it can get really sticky - What about quad-core CPU's? How do they fit into the mix?
If you think about it, and actually take the time to look at the 25-digit Product Key for your OS you will see that it is a license for 1-2 CPU's. What happens when you have a dual quad-core setup? Isn't that like 8 processors?
Technically - no. In practice, yes. It is actually 2 CPU's with a total of 8 CORES, that is, the ability to hyper-thread 8 different core processes at one time. Now Winslowz has had the ability to multi-process for years, but CORE processes are a much different beast. I am not gonna get into the details, as I have probably put many of you to sleep already with my psychobabble about computers...
Take it for a fact that more cores equals more power. More power equals more processes. More processes equals more programs running at once. And with all the crap running in the background on most computers we all need the most power we can get. At least I know I do... The ability to have enough memory (RAM) for all these applications (processes) is critical, hence the need for a 64-bit OS to be able to address more memory to give our apps more room to work, thereby finishing faster. It all equals SPEED.
And if you don't believe me, take 2 identical 64-bit capable machines whose hardware is configured exactly alike. Install a 32-bit OS on one, and an equal 64-bit OS on the other. (doesn't need to be MS stuff you can do this in UNIX as well) Tell me which one starts up faster, which one runns apps faster and which one can process a job faster. Now I know it has a lot to do with the surrounding sys-systems such as the drive subsystem and the graphics and such, but all things being equal, a 64-bit processor will perform better with a 64-bit OS in comparison to an identical 32-bit setup. Try it, you'll like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)