If you're buying a second hand CPU there are a few things to consider. Firstly, you need to know if it comes with a heatsink + fan or not. The heatsink + fan is the big block of metal with a fan on top that you place on the CPU to keep it from overheating. If the CPU doesn't come with one you may need to buy one for it (I don't know if the one that's currently on the Celeron will be rated for the P4; I suspect not). The second thing is that there needs to be a thermal interface material applied to the heatsink before you put it on the CPU. Most new heatsinks come with a pad of thermal interface material already applied, but for a second hand heatsink you'll need to apply some thermal paste before using the chip. If you don't you're likely to run into overheating problems as the CPU develops hot spots where the contact between the CPU and heatsink isn't sealed properly. The best advice I can give you is probably to take your PC to PC World when you get the new CPU and ask them for advice on fitting the new CPU. They should walk you through the thermal paste and heatsink issues and, if you bought something from them a while ago, they might be willing to do it free for you.
That's a mobile CPU (intended for use in a laptop). Even though it's a socket 478, it's incompatible with your motherboard, so it wouldn't work. See the last sentence in the "Technical specifications" section here:
If you're only upgrading the CPU you should be able to stick the new one in without reformatting your Windows installation. However, you might need to upgrade the BIOS in your motherboard to support a newer CPU. That depends on what CPU you choose. I've tried for a few minutes to look for BIOS updates on the SiS website, but it's really horribly laid out, so I've given up for the moment. I see from an earlier post your BIOS is dated as 2006, though, so it should be OK for P4 CPUs, but you'd need to check to make sure once you'd selected a CPU you wanted to buy.
The Celeron was effectively the budget line in Intel's CPU line-up. They were cut down versions of Pentium 4 chips (e.g. they had less on-chip cache). For a very quick comparison look at this list of CPU rankings. The Celeron 2.80 GHz chip is ranked 911th fastest CPU with a score of 335 on the Passmark CPU benchmark. The Pentium 4 2.80 GHz model is ranked 839th fastest with a score of 415. The Pentium 4 3.00 GHz model is ranked 769th with a score of 491.
OK, you've got 2 options as I see it:
1. Upgrade the CPU to a decent Pentium 4 socket 478.
2. Upgrade the graphics card to a new-ish AGP card (note: make sure the motherboard is compatible first, as I mention below).
I'd choose option 1, as I think that would give you more performance for the money in LFS and in other general usage.
CPU:
You'll struggle to find any online retailers selling decent socket 478 Pentium 4s new (though there are one or two floating about). You'd probably be better off getting something from eBay instead. For ~£20-30 you should be able to get around a 3.00 GHz socket 478 Pentium 4 that would give you a decent boost in LFS and other usage.
Graphics:
Try to find an AGP graphics card for around the same price (~£20-30). You can still buy AGP cards new, but you'd have to consider the power supply if you went down the graphics card route, especially with a newer card. Open the side of your case and see if you can find any labels on the power supply, so we could try and determine if it could run a more powerful card. Another potential problem is that the manufacturer's site for your motherboard specifically lists 1.5V compatibility for AGP. I'm not sure how many of the newer AGP cards would be compatible with your board...perhaps someone else with more specific knowledge could help you out there.
What's your budget? You'd be better off just buying a new system than putting any more money into this.
How many times do you need to be bitch slapped on technology before you realise you should just keep your mouth shut? Sorry for the harshness, but it's really getting tiring having to refute the nonsense you say so people don't believe you and end up getting into trouble.
Yes. It's such a silly concept that it's been integrated into several commonly used operating systems, several commonly used programming languages and there are a myriad of third party tools available. Hmm...maybe it's not so silly after all...
Say the average home user has 10 accounts they regularly use (email, online shopping, forums etc). Say the average username length is 8 characters and the average password length is 16 characters. That's 240 characters of data. Do you know how long it takes to encrypt or decrypt 240 characters of data even with 256 bit AES? Let me give you a hint...you're not going to be sitting there waiting half an hour like you see in films. When you have massively powerful tools available (yes, that's what a well done encryption algorithm is, at the end of the day) why not use them? Why settle for poor encryption strength when you can have incredible strength free and with the same (or very, very, very slightly longer) run time? It just makes no sense to say "this is too powerful, let's not use it".
Clearly it shouldn't be as simple as that. Most password management systems allow the user to see the security of the password they've chosen (as is becoming more common with other online services like Gmail) and many allow multiple different forms of protection (not just a master password). However, even if it was as simple as guessing a simple password the attacker would still need the file the passwords were encrypted in to actually use it.
+1
edit: I should also add that using a password manager and copy/pasting login/password information can be intercepted by applications that have access to the system clipboard. These include web browsers, so don't visit new pages with anything sensitive in the clipboard (e.g. copy some other random text immediately after inputting the sensitive information).
Last edited by amp88, .
Use a password generator which can generate passwords up to the maximum length allowed by the particular place where you need it (sometimes you can only use 10 characters, for example). Use the password generator for the username/login too, if you wish. Store the password (and username if required) in a password manager application which encrypts the data to disk (using strong encryption like 256 bit AES in CBC mode). Create a master password to encrypt/decrypt data to/from disk. The weakpoint with this approach is you need to remember the master password and you need to type it or otherwise input it (which is open to being detected through a keylogger, for example). There are different existing variations of this principle built into different OSs and programming languages. For example Keychain in MacOS. There are also loads of third party tools available.
Last edited by amp88, .
They're not totally relevant to this thread, but given the way things are headed I thought I'd repost some figures I posted on another forum some years ago:
What happens when you visit the favicon URL? What happens when you try Ctrl+F5 refreshing the favicon link?
Yes, that's what I understood you to mean. Keep us updated with progress reports
Design by committee is another thing that's very difficult actually do in the real world, especially when you have distributed team members and you're working in an intricate area. If you have multiple people working you need to co-ordinate your efforts which requires lots of communication, 'wasting' a lot of time that could be spent actually researching and coding the simulation. Have a look into Amdahl's law then consider which portion(s) of the task of designing the tyre simulation can be done in parallel.
It's that sort of nonsense sentence that should make anyone who was still believing what you say turn off immediately. You really have NO idea of the scale of the task, despite what you claim.
I wish you and your soon to be assembled group the best of luck. Judging by your posts here you're really going to need it. Still, if it stops you from posting here again for a while maybe there's a silver lining
...yet you think it's going to be "no problem" for a small group to do it in 6 years? Hmm, something doesn't quite add up here.
Again, good luck.
I disagree. Sure, some movies and TV benefit more than others from high definition, but all which were shot in 'HD' or higher benefit. Films like Hero (which I recently watched in 1080p) are so much more immersive and visually stunning in HD than DVD or other SD alternatives. Even film/TV genres which wouldn't seem to be as obvious to benefit from HD are improved because of the increase in clarity of the surroundings and in the actor's reactions. You can just pick up so much more in HD than in SD. Obviously this is an issue that's down to personal opinion and taste, to an extent, but I just can't respect the side of the argument that tries to argue technology is on their side when it clearly isn't.
F1 in HD will be more informative, more visually stunning and more immersive than in SD.
So, despite having no experience in the field (by your own admission) you're sure that you could surpass LFS within a couple of years? Well...it's certainly a bold statement and avoiding the burden of proof is a master stroke.
Oh, you do? How did you come to have this respect? I hate to go back to it, but you've already said you have no experience. I see you have a background in "mechanics", but building an accurate tyre model isn't just about copying some formulae from a text book and plugging them into the computer. There are very few people who truly know how hard it is to develop an accurate tyre model. The fact that there have been several independent efforts (from groups of developers and lone developers alike) and none are quite there yet stands as a testament. Even the ones that are being used by F1 teams for their simulators are being improved constantly and they have budgets in the tens of millions of GBP (if not higher). Sure, some tyre models are 'better' than others and some are improving all the time, but how many of them are accurate (or within a small degree of error) in the broad spectrum of scenarios which are encountered in the real world? How many can't handle low speed situations well? How many behave accurately at high tyre surface temperatures? How many can't cope with cars that produce downforce?
Same stuff that's been said time and time again. Nothing to comment on here.
Can't see the AIRIO output on the mpr. You're saying AIRIO gave a different result than LFS?
Anything to back that up? There's been debate about how the finishing order is given in a tie situation, but I've never heard of alphabetical order coming into it.
Improving the timing (including higher precision) has been discussed many times before, including in the following threads:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=67395
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=1355
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=65692
I put in "random number generation is too important to be left to chance" expecting your application to break the words up on spaces. But it didn't. You might want to remove that. Sorry.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG