Computing desk | ||
---|---|---|
< June 11 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 13 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
What is the default, and how I can change it? Can the TTL of packages sent by a particular application be manipulated by the same application? Czech is Cyrillized ( talk) 01:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering why Dual_EC_DRBG was included in the Template:Conspiracy theories. No one seems to deny the problems with the routine, or am I missing something? Ssscienccce ( talk) 09:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of upgrading (i.e. replacing most of) my five year old computer. I'm getting a lot of high powered new parts that'll hopefully be able to run all the advanced graphics software for my games and university course. However, I've hit a little bit of an issue, not so much a problem but a chance to plan ahead and see what would be the best, most economical solution. I can get a decent motherboard that'll do everything I want now, for about £50 or so, but when I want to upgrade further in a couple more years time, I'd need to replace that with a new, improved one. Or, I could get a much better motherboard, that'll handle everything I could possibly want from this thing for years to come, but would mean I'd have to upgrade to another AM3+ compatible CPU, if I don't want to have to replace it and waste all that extra cost. So, that'd mean risking quite a lot of money on there being a decent upgrade to my current CPU, that is hoping the Excavator chips have the same socket compatibility, assuming the project isn't cancelled entirely... And then I've been looking at these latest APUs, they seem to be going somewhere interesting...
So, do I stick with a big, powerful motherboard that I can upgrade bit by bit over many years, or get a cheap one that'll last me a couple of years and can be easily replaced when I come to embrace whatever new technology may be just around the corner?
213.104.128.16 ( talk) 11:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
...where the vertical parts are when you do your upgrades. Now, by getting the second-greatest, slightly outdated hardware, the peaks are lower (because you never have the absolute latest stuff) - but because you saved money, you can upgrade sooner - before it gets as obsolete as your more expensive purchase - so the troughs are not as low and the frequency of that sawtooth is higher. The net effect depends on how fast hardware depreciates and how much you save by buying less-than-cutting-edge stuff - but even with quite conservative numbers, you have less obsolete hardware for more of the time by not buying the latest and greatest. Looked at another way, while you miss out on having the best hardware of all of your friends - you also miss out on having the lamest! SteveBaker ( talk) 14:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Computing desk | ||
---|---|---|
< June 11 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 13 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
What is the default, and how I can change it? Can the TTL of packages sent by a particular application be manipulated by the same application? Czech is Cyrillized ( talk) 01:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering why Dual_EC_DRBG was included in the Template:Conspiracy theories. No one seems to deny the problems with the routine, or am I missing something? Ssscienccce ( talk) 09:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of upgrading (i.e. replacing most of) my five year old computer. I'm getting a lot of high powered new parts that'll hopefully be able to run all the advanced graphics software for my games and university course. However, I've hit a little bit of an issue, not so much a problem but a chance to plan ahead and see what would be the best, most economical solution. I can get a decent motherboard that'll do everything I want now, for about £50 or so, but when I want to upgrade further in a couple more years time, I'd need to replace that with a new, improved one. Or, I could get a much better motherboard, that'll handle everything I could possibly want from this thing for years to come, but would mean I'd have to upgrade to another AM3+ compatible CPU, if I don't want to have to replace it and waste all that extra cost. So, that'd mean risking quite a lot of money on there being a decent upgrade to my current CPU, that is hoping the Excavator chips have the same socket compatibility, assuming the project isn't cancelled entirely... And then I've been looking at these latest APUs, they seem to be going somewhere interesting...
So, do I stick with a big, powerful motherboard that I can upgrade bit by bit over many years, or get a cheap one that'll last me a couple of years and can be easily replaced when I come to embrace whatever new technology may be just around the corner?
213.104.128.16 ( talk) 11:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
...where the vertical parts are when you do your upgrades. Now, by getting the second-greatest, slightly outdated hardware, the peaks are lower (because you never have the absolute latest stuff) - but because you saved money, you can upgrade sooner - before it gets as obsolete as your more expensive purchase - so the troughs are not as low and the frequency of that sawtooth is higher. The net effect depends on how fast hardware depreciates and how much you save by buying less-than-cutting-edge stuff - but even with quite conservative numbers, you have less obsolete hardware for more of the time by not buying the latest and greatest. Looked at another way, while you miss out on having the best hardware of all of your friends - you also miss out on having the lamest! SteveBaker ( talk) 14:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)