Open Source Realtime Strategy Game Engine
https://springrts.licho.eu/phpbb/
https://windows7upgradeoption.com/Landing.aspxKaiserJ wrote:yes pendro, your ubuntu is borky, mine only uses about 200 megs of ram.
so about his free vista upgrade to 7, how does one go about doing that?
yeah. ubuntu choking on memory is totally its fault.Code: Select all
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 6490 marts 20 0 1899m 100m 28m S 8 6.6 48:59.20 IEXPLORE.EXE
1500 * 0.066 = 99 Mbaegis wrote:yeah. ubuntu choking on memory is totally its fault.%MEM
6.6
I suggest you to actually look what that number means instead ...Pendrokar wrote:1500 * 0.066 = 99 Mbaegis wrote:yeah. ubuntu choking on memory is totally its fault.%MEM
6.6
OH MY GOD!!!
the 6.6% MEM is only physical ram usage, VIRT includes everything, in your case explorer probably swapped badlyn: %MEM -- Memory usage (RES)
A task's currently used share of available physical memory.
o: VIRT -- Virtual Image (kb)
The total amount of virtual memory used by the task. It
includes all code, data and shared libraries plus pages that
have been swapped out.
VIRT = SWAP + RES.
p: SWAP -- Swapped size (kb)
The swapped out portion of a task's total virtual memory image.
q: RES -- Resident size (kb)
The non-swapped physical memory a task has used.
r: CODE -- Code size (kb)
The amount of virtual memory devoted to executable code, also
known as the 'text resident set' size or TRS.
s: DATA -- Data+Stack size (kb)
The amount of virtual memory devoted to other than executable
code, also known as the 'data resident set' size or DRS.
t: SHR -- Shared Mem size (kb)
The amount of shared memory used by a task. It simply reflects
memory that could be potentially shared with other processes.
It isn't integrated anymore. You can completely remove it, and in the EU it is sold without IE, however, it's stupid to remove it because so many 3rd party software companies rely on the IE rendering engine that those programs fail. Long time ago I uninstalled IE just for the hell of it, 20 minutes later I realized that I had tons of programs that were out and out broken because they rely on the IE Rendering Engine. As a result, it was reinstalled post haste.==Troy== wrote:@ FA : I must have missed that point, but this isnt about deletion of the IE. Its about the integration of it into the system. MS still does not comply with EU anti-trust laws. (where the problem was with integration and default distribution of the IE).
Forboding Angel wrote:It isn't integrated anymore. You can completely remove it, and in the EU it is sold without IE, however, it's stupid to remove it because so many 3rd party software companies rely on the IE rendering engine that those programs fail. Long time ago I uninstalled IE just for the hell of it, 20 minutes later I realized that I had tons of programs that were out and out broken because they rely on the IE Rendering Engine. As a result, it was reinstalled post haste.==Troy== wrote:@ FA : I must have missed that point, but this isnt about deletion of the IE. Its about the integration of it into the system. MS still does not comply with EU anti-trust laws. (where the problem was with integration and default distribution of the IE).
IE is microsoft's produce, so is windows, if MS wants to bundle IE that is their business and the EU has no business sticking their fat faces in it.
I don't get the point of your argument. If you have a need to use 3rd party software that DEPENDS on IE mechanics then how can you avoid that by running lunix, osx or whatever? Spock would say: This is most illogical.==Troy== wrote:Forboding Angel wrote:It isn't integrated anymore. You can completely remove it, and in the EU it is sold without IE, however, it's stupid to remove it because so many 3rd party software companies rely on the IE rendering engine that those programs fail. Long time ago I uninstalled IE just for the hell of it, 20 minutes later I realized that I had tons of programs that were out and out broken because they rely on the IE Rendering Engine. As a result, it was reinstalled post haste.==Troy== wrote:@ FA : I must have missed that point, but this isnt about deletion of the IE. Its about the integration of it into the system. MS still does not comply with EU anti-trust laws. (where the problem was with integration and default distribution of the IE).
IE is microsoft's produce, so is windows, if MS wants to bundle IE that is their business and the EU has no business sticking their fat faces in it.
Exactly my point : tonns of programs relying on IE rengering, MEANS that if there is a bug in IE rendering, ALL of those programs are likely to be affected.
This is what deeply integrated means, not that you cannot uninstall it, or that it is bundled with Win or not.
There are also many other examples of similar politics from MS and the shortcomings of it.
Gertkane wrote: I don't get the point of your argument. If you have a need to use 3rd party software that DEPENDS on IE mechanics then how can you avoid that by running lunix, osx or whatever? Spock would say: This is most illogical.
More secure than what? XP? In that case that statement makes you a delusional idiot. More secure than linux or mac? I don't think anyone ever made those claims, however, linux and macs are more susceptible to tampering because they do not have the years and years of hardcore security testing that MS has painfully learned from.==Troy== wrote: Win7 is more secure is laughable, yes, it is more secure, from its user)
Forboding Angel wrote:More secure than what? XP? In that case that statement makes you a delusional idiot. More secure than linux or mac? I don't think anyone ever made those claims, however, linux and macs are more susceptible to tampering because they do not have the years and years of hardcore security testing that MS has painfully learned from.==Troy== wrote: Win7 is more secure is laughable, yes, it is more secure, from its user)
If all virus makers and hackers to to today turn their sights on mac and linux (in this example, ubuntu) and the user being an average know nothing computer user (like a grandmother using windows), I think that mac and linux would crumple much faster than a vista/win7 machine would. Of course that is highly debatable, however, linux in particular does not have all the "common" safeguards that windows machines have. No OS is unhackable, no piece of software is unhackable, that is simply a fact of the game.
Absolutist illogical trolling is absolutist==Troy== wrote: You should certainly read the "myths of linux" pages on the internet. One of them addresses your plainly blind statement about hackers "not targetting" linux. I withdraw from this discussion until the next time when someone makes another incorrect statement about windows or linux :)
That would be a good idea, because in this case, you're arguing from a place of weakness.==Troy== wrote:I withdraw from this discussion until the next time when someone makes another incorrect statement about windows or linux :)