Computing desk
< December 20	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

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.

December 21[edit]

Creating a programming environment in CYGWIN[edit]

I want to get a bunch of compilers and emacs onto CYGWIN, what's the easiest way to do this?

-Robin

Run setup.exe, the cygwin installer
During the "select packages" step of installation, click the "View" button to get to the "Full View".
For each package you want (including emacs, compilers, etc.), click on "Skip" to change it to "Install Binary"
Click next and complete installation.

Hope this helps. dpotter 00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend: everything to do with gcc, make, automake, emacs (or xemacs), binutils, nasm. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 07:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii or XBox, which has better hardware[edit]

I would like to know if the Wii (7th Gen games console) is technologically better than the original XBox. there is some info on each of their pages, but many modern console components have a name, not just a "rating" like 16bit, or 733mhz. There is also no standard format to how console specs are detailed on each page and while I'm a fan of "the history of gaming" pages, as technology has developed, understanding what constitutes a better machine has become harder and harder. --Aaron 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a good starting point for you: [1] dpotter 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dpotter, but I was thinking about the original XBox, not the 360. Aaron 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of simple computing power, the Wii is about 25%-50% better. --Carnildo 08:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly constitutes the Wii as better? These are the comparable statistics that I can find on their pages, they look pretty similar. That is, those specifications counted in a certain number of Hz/B. So I don't get it, am I missing something? Aaron 12:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XBox:

CPU: 733 MHz

GPU: 233 MHz custom chip

Mem: 64 MB DDR SDRAM (running at 200 MHz Unified Memory Subsystem)

Storage: 1GB hard disk Aaron 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii:

CPU: 729 MHz

GPU: 243 MHz ATI "Hollywood"

Mem: 88 MB main memory (64 MB GDDR3 SDRAM, 24 MB 1T-SRAM in graphics package)

Storage: 512 MB built-in flash memory Aaron 12:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clock speeds are the same, but clock speed isn't everything. The XBox has an older Intel Celeron processor, which isn't very efficient in terms of calculations per clock cycle. The Wii, on ther other hand, has a PowerPC, which is quite efficient in calculations per cycle. Likewise with the GPUs: you need to look at not only the clock speed, but the number of pipelines (gaming cards have only increased in clock speed from 200MHz to 600MHz over the past five years, but the number of pipelines has gone from two to 16 or 32) and the efficiency of the pipelines. --Carnildo 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in fact clock speed is hardly anything. I don't even know why reviewers list clock speed comparatively, it isn't useful at all, and it's deceptive to people who don't know what clocking actually is --⁪froth^{T C} 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, how many calculations per cycle can each processor manage? (I tried a bit of research...). Also, how many pipelines does each GPU have? With these stats added to those above, is that the basic list of important details? Aaron 14:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact number of calculations depends on what calculations are being done: it's not uncommon for a CPU to be able to do two integer additions per cycle, but something complicated like a square root might take a hundred cycles. For scientific and computer-graphics calculations, performance is measured in FLOPS: number of floating-point math operations per second. Logic and integer math performace is measured in IPS: the number of instructions the chip can process per second.

The Xbox is a slightly-modified PC, so specifications on it are easy to come by. The Wii, on the other hand, uses many custom parts, and Nintendo hasn't announced anything about the specifications. What is known is that it is about twice as powerful as the Gamecube, and the Gamecube is slightly less powerful than the Xbox. --Carnildo 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come the 360/PS3 have so little RAM (compared to the rather impressive processor arrays)? I know they're not multitasking, but even so. Seems a bit of an overkill to stick 7 processors on a machine with no memory.. yandman 09:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of memory is probably quite realistic if it all represents data that will be used in a single (50 or 60Hz) frame - consoles probably don't have the software bloat that plagues PC's. For a relatively complex physical simulation (eg human bodies) - more than 1000 bodies would easily overload both xbox 360 and PS3 processors - yet the data to store the physical parameters would easily fit in 1 megabyte.. So unless a lot of memory is required for graphics data etc having extreme amounts of memory is just overkill (and adds a little to the price).87.102.22.58 11:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(apologies for above - I may have underestimated the number needed to fully utilise all processors in a given 0.02 sec frame - but the point remains the same - complex calculations on interacting objects (physical collision,pathfinding,agent to agent checks etc) can take up a lot of time but not need massive amounts of memory)87.102.22.58 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also this helpful other fellow said this :http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=212742&cid=17319596 - no context switches in consoles - so less memory needed.87.102.22.58 14:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lame explanation, context switches don't cause that much memory overhead --⁪froth^{T C} 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the sixteen billion bits of memory capacity that's crammed into modern gaming rigs is kind of overkill, a few hundred megabytes is plenty sufficient for a dedicated console --⁪froth^{T C} 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Network neutrality?[edit]

When my ISP throttles my bandwidth on file sharing protocols but gives me full bandwidth on the web, is this an example of a network neutrality violation? Neon Merlin 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an example of Quality of service. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing hidden folders on WinXP[edit]

Hi there. As the title says, I'm trying to view hidden folders on my system. It's Windows XP (can't remember if it's professional or home vers). I've been looking everywhere, under Tools, Edit, View, r-clicking and viewing Properties, but I still can't find a "View hidden folder" option.

Oh, and I'm working from an administrative account btw. 203.87.184.66 20:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Explorer, Tools ... Folder Options ... View tab ... Hidden files and folders ... "Do not show..." -> "Show..." - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks!