On 2025-01-15 15:58, Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 1/15/2025 7:51 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-01-14 00:10, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> MacOS machines have a shelf life of about seven years before Apple decides that your machine is no longer worth supporting with updates. As we've seen, Windows machines get about seven, so it's a fair amount of time. However, Linux has them both beat with unlimited support no matter how pathetic the machine you're running it on is.
>>
>> Hum. That is not completely true, either. Some distributions stopped supporting 32 bit machines.
>>
>> Each year you need more ram to run the same apps.
>>
>> Proprietary drivers like NVidia stop publishing drivers for what they think is old hardware, and the open source version doesn't have the full feature set.
>>
>> Modern videos use codecs that can not keep running fast enough on pathetic machines.
>
> As long as the videos are coded in something that VAAPI or NVENC/NVDEC has,
> the movie can be decoded for "almost free". For example, Intel Quicksync
> has sufficient horsepower, to decode five video streams at the same time,
> on the early instances of that hardware block.
>
> Old machines and their older video cards without NVidia driver support, might no
> longer have access to the built-in encoder/decoder hardware on the video card,
> in which case the fallback software method would be used instead.
>
> Another contributor to "pathetic", is the video decoding process can use a
> "scaler" which changes a 720x576 decoded video, to whatever box size the
> browser presents at the time (the wrapper frame). Doing a pixmap scaler
> in software, used at least 30% of a P4 core. Whereas the hardware scaler
> (driver support), could do a scaling operation "for free".
>
> And finally, insisting on compositing as a system-wide way of doing things,
> if the video card compositing is not working and the OS has to use fallback
> code for that, that could take buckets of horsepower to do.
>
> An old machine really needs the support. It isn't so much "pathetic" as it is
> everything working against it. "All the items are leaning the wrong way."
>
> The code path has had IDCT removed, so when an old machine has been
> stripped of all its goodness, the code doesn't even use the IDCT
> (Inverse Discrete Cosine transform for macroblocks). That is a method of
> providing a slight acceleration, when forced to do video decode in software.
> The older software used to use that, as it helped a bit with the decoding
> process.

Right.

I have a mini PC that I use as server and to display movies in my computer room.

Isengard:~ # inxi -GSaz --vs
inxi 3.3.23-00 (2022-10-31)
System:
Kernel: 5.14.21-150500.55.88-default arch: x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc
v: 7.5.0 parameters: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-5.14.21-150500.55.88-default
root=UUID=0d457df1-b43d-4587-aa5a-6c919bcbedb8 showopts splash=verbose
resume=/dev/disk/by-label/Swap verbose mitigations=auto
Desktop: Xfce v: 4.18.1 tk: Gtk v: 3.24.34 info: xfce4-panel wm: xfwm
v: 4.18.0 dm: SDDM Distro: openSUSE Leap 15.5
Graphics:
Device-1: Intel Atom/Celeron/Pentium Processor x5-E8000/J3xxx/N3xxx
Integrated Graphics vendor: Micro-Star MSI driver: i915 v: kernel
arch: Gen-8 process: Intel 14nm built: 2014-15 ports: active: HDMI-A-3
empty: DP-1, DP-2, DP-3, HDMI-A-1, HDMI-A-2 bus-ID: 00:02.0
chip-ID: 8086:22b1 class-ID: 0300
Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.21.1.4 with: Xwayland v: 22.1.5
compositor: xfwm v: 4.18.0 driver: X: loaded: intel dri: iris gpu: i915
display-ID: localhost:11.0 screens: 1
Screen-1: 0 s-res: 1920x1080 s-dpi: 96 s-size: 508x285mm (20.00x11.22")
s-diag: 582mm (22.93")
Monitor-1: HDMI-A-3 mapped: DVI-D-0 model: Samsung T22C350 built: 2012
res: 1920x1080 hz: 60 dpi: 92 gamma: 1.2 size: 531x298mm (20.91x11.73")
diag: 547mm (21.5") ratio: 16:9 modes: max: 1920x1080 min: 720x400
API: OpenGL v: 4.5 Mesa 22.3.5 renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 15.0.7 128 bits)
direct render: Yes
Isengard:~ #

Well, there are movies that simply block, display one photo then get stuck. Maybe the audio keeps playing. I had to recode with ffmpeg on another machine in order to view them here.

YouTube, I can no longer display in full screen, because the image stutters. I can see the CPU load at about 90%.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 03:09:43 +0000, Manu Raju wrote:
>
>> Linux gets bloats every two weeks
>> and some people like it! I don't and so I solved the dilemma by moving
>> to Windows.
>
>Windows is the one that needs regular defragging and running of dodgy
>hacks like CCleaner etc. Linux does not.

I never needed that with Windows, but reinstalling ended up happening,
from time to time.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and
>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>
>macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on.

Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free,
self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite
isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just
to incentivize buying/using an Apple device.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and
>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>>
>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on.
>
> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free,
> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite
> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just
> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device.
>

Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent...

....or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his
alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less
($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950).

But don't let actual math get in one's way of a good narrative! /s

-hh

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:33:48 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <vm8o1d$313ov$1@dont-email.me>:

> On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and
>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>>>
>>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on.
>>
>> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free,
>> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite
>> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just
>> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device.
>>
>>
> Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent...
>
> ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his
> alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less
> ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950).

Having played the "buy a mac mini to get MacOS" game, I can tell
you that I was very disappointed.

The Mac Studio we have now is a few steps up, but it's not worth
what we paid for it. It's clunky, and the security policies on
it are one-offs. It's a UNIX system, but they've bolted on extras
that are downright unfriendly.

Meanwhile Mrs. vallor's new workstation is still waiting in the wings;
turns out, she expanded the scope of "make a space on her desk"
into "re-organize her office". ;)

fu2: cola

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.9 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Linux is obsolete" -Andrew Tanenbaum

On 1/15/25 12:02 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:33:48 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> wrote in <vm8o1d$313ov$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and
>>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>>>>
>>>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on.
>>>
>>> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free,
>>> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite
>>> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just
>>> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device.
>>>
>>>
>> Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent...
>>
>> ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his
>> alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less
>> ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950).
>
> Having played the "buy a mac mini to get MacOS" game, I can tell
> you that I was very disappointed.

IMO the mini had historically been Apple's product to promote desktop
customers to migrate from Windows, but its shortcomings have centered
around how 90% of the market ignored it because it wasn't a laptop, and
the other 10% are tower fetish geeks who were offended because it
couldn't easily address every possible niche/corner use case.

> The Mac Studio we have now is a few steps up, but it's not worth
> what we paid for it.

The Studio's now two months from being 3 years old, and pretty much all
its gotten to date has been a CPU bump. It was envisioned as the being
a midpoint between the mini & Mac Pro, effectively a replacement for the
iMac Pro, whose MSRP started at $5K.

> It's clunky, and the security policies on
> it are one-offs. It's a UNIX system, but they've bolted on extras
> that are downright unfriendly.

Just which security policies are so constraining? Likewise, are these
so-called 'unfriendly' elements something which affects the Pareto
Principle 80% use case, or is it more akin to a niche/corner use case?

> Meanwhile Mrs. vallor's new workstation is still waiting in the wings;
> turns out, she expanded the scope of "make a space on her desk"
> into "re-organize her office". ;)
>
> fu2: cola

Good for her. Let me know if you're going to then be selling the
Studio, as I'd not mind picking up another one at the right specs/price.

-hh

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-01-13 17:54, Joel wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-13 16:32, Joel wrote:
>>>> MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/01/2025 23:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows is a great OS -- if your time is worth
>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So which OS do you choose to expend your valuable time on?
>>>>
>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and
>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>>>
>>> There's not much to pursue in MacOS. It works as it should and it is a
>>> fairly pleasant experience. However, I would agree that it's expensive.
>>> After a while, you'll need tools to do additional things and on MacOS,
>>> you're going to be paying money in most cases. Open-source is available
>>> for it too, mind you.
>>
>>
>> I just dislike Windows and macOS, it might be my own opinion but it's
>> right for me.
>
> MacOS machines have a shelf life of about seven years before Apple
> decides that your machine is no longer worth supporting with updates. As
> we've seen, Windows machines get about seven, so it's a fair amount of
> time. However, Linux has them both beat with unlimited support no matter
> how pathetic the machine you're running it on is.

Only if you're prepared to handroll backports etc. Realistically, linux is
also 5-7 years. Most LTS is 5 years.

The hardest thing is trying to keep gcc up to date. At some point too many
glibc dependencies break and you can't compile any new kernel updates.

Hank Rogers wrote on 1/14/25 7:05 PM:
> vallor wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:52:05 -0600, Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote in <vm48v6$23a1f$2@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> Joel wrote:
>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-13 17:54, Joel wrote:
>>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-13 16:32, Joel wrote:
>>>>>>>> MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2025 23:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Windows is a great OS -- if your time is worth nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So which OS do you choose to expend your valuable time on?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing.  macOS is weird and
>>>>>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's not much to pursue in MacOS. It works as it should and it is
>>>>>>> a fairly pleasant experience. However, I would agree that it's
>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>> After a while, you'll need tools to do additional things and on
>>>>>>> MacOS, you're going to be paying money in most cases. Open-source is
>>>>>>> available for it too, mind you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just dislike Windows and macOS, it might be my own opinion but it's
>>>>>> right for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> MacOS machines have a shelf life of about seven years before Apple
>>>>> decides that your machine is no longer worth supporting with updates.
>>>>> As we've seen, Windows machines get about seven, so it's a fair amount
>>>>> of time. However, Linux has them both beat with unlimited support no
>>>>> matter how pathetic the machine you're running it on is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My machine is an interesting example - if I'd stayed with Win10, it'd
>>>> be slammin', but then support would end relatively early in its life.
>>>> So upgrade to 11, great, until the bloat overtakes it, as in my view it
>>>> already began to with 23H2.  Linux is the only way to solve this
>>>> dilemma.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Indeed, linux is the only way to salvation.
>>
>> I'm glad you see the light, Brother Hank!
>>
>> https://cultnix.org/
>>
>> (_Cult of Unix_ home page -- there's nothing there but
>> a title with an animated gif, perhaps I should add some
>> epistles? ;)   )
>>
>> ObWindows:
>>
>> Just navigated the backup mess in Windows 11 --
>
> I said the hell with windows backup long long ago. Even if it works
> perfectly What are the chances they'll change it? And once a month,
> updates can easily dork it. Microsoft constantly fiddles with everything,
> even if it's working perfectly. It's just what they do.
>
> I think people are better off to get some type of imaging software,
> written by people that are experts and specialize in that.  I use macrium
> reflect, but there are several others just as good or better and most
> have a free version. Backup software is too important to trust microsoft.
>
Windows backup in Windows 10 and 11 is old Windows 7 code.
- imo, it should be avoided. There are multiple free and fee version
backup and imaging programs much better for imaging and restoration.
Macrium Reflect Free
EaseUs ToDo Backup Free
AOMEI Backupper Standard Free
Paragon Backup and Recovery Community Edition - Free

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and
>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>>>
>>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on.
>>
>> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free,
>> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite
>> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just
>> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device.
>
>Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent...
>
>...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his
>alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less
>($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950).
>
>But don't let actual math get in one's way of a good narrative! /s

You keep including my monitor or video card or something, those were
choice add-ons that I could've trivially avoided with another HD
monitor.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 1/15/25 2:32 PM, Joel wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing. macOS is weird and
>>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>>>>
>>>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on.
>>>
>>> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free,
>>> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite
>>> isn't cheap for the device it buys. That OS upgrades are free is just
>>> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device.
>>
>> Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent...
>>
>> ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his
>> alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less
>> ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950).
>>
>> But don't let actual math get in one's way of a good narrative! /s
>
>
> You keep including my monitor or video card or something, those were
> choice add-ons that I could've trivially avoided with another HD
> monitor.
>

Monitor? Nope.

Video Card? Yup: because you said that even though you'd researched
your gear, you quickly realized that you screwed up as the i5's included
one was inadequate for your desires. But even if we subtract off the
$100 you spent here, its still $600 vs your $850 spent

But do feel free to provide a detailed cost list.

Because even the $100 you spent on the video card is subtracted off too,
your $850 spent is still higher than $600, but now its only by +30%.

-hh

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:40:14 -0500, Joel wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 03:09:43 +0000, Manu Raju wrote:
>>
>>> Linux gets bloats every two weeks and some people like it! I don't
>>> and so I solved the dilemma by moving to Windows.
>>
>>Windows is the one that needs regular defragging and running of dodgy
>>hacks like CCleaner etc. Linux does not.
>
>
> I never needed that with Windows, but reinstalling ended up happening,
> from time to time.

I haven't bothered with dual boot in a long time but the problem with a
Windows install that had been running for any length of time was it left
pecker tracks all over the HDD. You had to defrag to get enough free
storage all in one place.

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:51:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Hum. That is not completely true, either. Some distributions stopped
> supporting 32 bit machines.

The only one I came across was Debian. The machine itself was 64-bit but
our legacy code was 32-bit, as was Esri's ArcObjects. I think Ubuntu 18.04
was the last release where you had a prayer of finding 32-bit Motif
libraries and others. It's all fine to pass the 32-bit flag to gcc but if
you can't link the libs you're done.

On Wed, 1/15/2025 6:14 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:40:14 -0500, Joel wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 03:09:43 +0000, Manu Raju wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linux gets bloats every two weeks and some people like it! I don't
>>>> and so I solved the dilemma by moving to Windows.
>>>
>>> Windows is the one that needs regular defragging and running of dodgy
>>> hacks like CCleaner etc. Linux does not.
>>
>>
>> I never needed that with Windows, but reinstalling ended up happening,
>> from time to time.
>
> I haven't bothered with dual boot in a long time but the problem with a
> Windows install that had been running for any length of time was it left
> pecker tracks all over the HDD. You had to defrag to get enough free
> storage all in one place.
>

Not in evidence.

The writer tends to maintain a couple of zones. Some
of the larger files seem to end up above, a lot of the smaller files
are below. The NTFS file system has a "reserved" area, which
interferes with operation of the partition, as the partition fills up.
This is why, quite frequently, patterns which should not create fragments,
result in "yellow" in a partition that should not have been there. The
reserved area starts at a certain size, and the amount of reservation
changes as the space fills up. For people who like their files packed
like sardines, they are most put out by this development :-)

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/YCDLWmkB/Windows-SSD-fragmentation.gif

These sample OSes are all on SSDs, where the rule is, you do not defragment them.
(SSDs get TRIM, instead.) The OS still has the right to defragment them,
if slow-COW conditions are detected. That should not have happened to these.

The top two panes are from a newer AMD system. The bottom two panes
are from the 4930K ten year old computer.

The "red line" is an item that cannot be moved by the defragmentation
tool used to make these pictures. I use the tool for taking pictures,
when these particular devices are involved. The fragmentation means
nothing (at this light level of fragmentation) to performance.

The "red line" can also not be moved by the windows Disk Management
"shrink function". It can shrink to about 50% of the original partition
space, when a partition does not have a lot of files. In the "red line example"
at the bottom, the Disk Management will shrink to 50%, while other methods
will shrink to 33% or so. The shrinking process stops when it hits
that red line.

Generally, if the program doing the shrink is doing it in an offline
fashion, that gives much better control than when the Windows one attempts
to do it online ("hot" shrink). Thus, gparted can shrink the red line pane,
to the 33% number without too much delay.

It's the same with zeroing functions. The Windows third party tool is
"sdelete64.exe" and it zeros a partition while the partition remains
mounted. Whereas Linux "zerofree" does this same kind of function
on unmounted partitions.

One reason the Windows people like to show off with their
functions such as shrink, is they're implemented with the
data-safe defragmenter API. Which was originally written
by a third party, but was good enough for Microsoft to buy
it and put it in the OS as a library. Everybody and his dog
uses that library. It would be "extra work" for somebody
to write an offline version of the tool instead :-) The tool
that took the green pictures, also uses that library.

There's still plenty of room to work on those partitions.

On this sample data partition, this shows how the writer
is filling in the holes, and the two "air holes" are likely
a result of the reserved space handling. Again, being on an
SSD, no attempt has ever been made to defragment the thing.
And the green, is files which are contiguous and their
clusters are in cluster-order. The yellow ones are "largely ordered",
but as soon as one cluster goes out of line for such a file,
the whole file will be yellow. Considering "how evil" fragmentation
is, you don't see a lot of fragmentation there.

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/wjRgwtLp/Sample-Data-Partition.gif

*******

This picture was done seven years ago. The top two panes are
performance on a RAMdrive. Running a checksum program on
a large file, one with a lot of fragments, one with no fragments,
there is hardly any speed difference to the performance of the
checksum program when we are measuring the file system stack
penalty for fragments.

[Picture} Top two panes = RAMDrive, bottom two panes = SATA SSD

https://i.postimg.cc/ry7VnwF7/fragmentation.gif

Whereas the bottom case, the seek time on an SSD could be 20 microseconds
or so. And then the SSD speed does have an impact on the read rate of
the checksumming process. When doing these experiments, you do a bit of
fiddling first to clear the System Read cache.

No attempt was made to run that on a HDD, as the results would
be quite bad on an HDD. The rattling noise that would make, would
get on my nerves.

And the pattern on the storage there, was done with a purpose-built
pathological tool. I wasn't doing my income taxes to make that pattern.
Regular disk usage does not fragment like that.

Is Windows cheating to make relatively good-looking partitions ?
It's possible. I do not normally see suspicious patterns of the
drive light, hinting that some rearranging is going on. The write
algo has changed since WinXP days, whatever it is. Leaving holes
in the cheese, seems to have something to do with later placing
small files in the holes.

Paul

On 2025-01-16, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 1/15/2025 6:14 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:40:14 -0500, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 03:09:43 +0000, Manu Raju wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Linux gets bloats every two weeks and some people like it! I don't
>>>>> and so I solved the dilemma by moving to Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Windows is the one that needs regular defragging and running of dodgy
>>>> hacks like CCleaner etc. Linux does not.
>>>
>>>
>>> I never needed that with Windows, but reinstalling ended up happening,
>>> from time to time.
>>
>> I haven't bothered with dual boot in a long time but the problem with a
>> Windows install that had been running for any length of time was it left
>> pecker tracks all over the HDD. You had to defrag to get enough free
>> storage all in one place.
>>
>
> Not in evidence.
>
> The writer tends to maintain a couple of zones. Some
> of the larger files seem to end up above, a lot of the smaller files
> are below. The NTFS file system has a "reserved" area, which
> interferes with operation of the partition, as the partition fills up.
> This is why, quite frequently, patterns which should not create fragments,
> result in "yellow" in a partition that should not have been there. The
> reserved area starts at a certain size, and the amount of reservation
> changes as the space fills up. For people who like their files packed
> like sardines, they are most put out by this development :-)
>
> [Picture]
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/YCDLWmkB/Windows-SSD-fragmentation.gif
>
> These sample OSes are all on SSDs, where the rule is, you do not defragment them.
> (SSDs get TRIM, instead.) The OS still has the right to defragment them,
> if slow-COW conditions are detected. That should not have happened to these.
>
> The top two panes are from a newer AMD system. The bottom two panes
> are from the 4930K ten year old computer.
>
> The "red line" is an item that cannot be moved by the defragmentation
> tool used to make these pictures. I use the tool for taking pictures,
> when these particular devices are involved. The fragmentation means
> nothing (at this light level of fragmentation) to performance.
>
> The "red line" can also not be moved by the windows Disk Management
> "shrink function". It can shrink to about 50% of the original partition
> space, when a partition does not have a lot of files. In the "red line example"
> at the bottom, the Disk Management will shrink to 50%, while other methods
> will shrink to 33% or so. The shrinking process stops when it hits
> that red line.
>
> Generally, if the program doing the shrink is doing it in an offline
> fashion, that gives much better control than when the Windows one attempts
> to do it online ("hot" shrink). Thus, gparted can shrink the red line pane,
> to the 33% number without too much delay.
>
> It's the same with zeroing functions. The Windows third party tool is
> "sdelete64.exe" and it zeros a partition while the partition remains
> mounted. Whereas Linux "zerofree" does this same kind of function
> on unmounted partitions.
>
> One reason the Windows people like to show off with their
> functions such as shrink, is they're implemented with the
> data-safe defragmenter API. Which was originally written
> by a third party, but was good enough for Microsoft to buy
> it and put it in the OS as a library. Everybody and his dog
> uses that library. It would be "extra work" for somebody
> to write an offline version of the tool instead :-) The tool
> that took the green pictures, also uses that library.
>
> There's still plenty of room to work on those partitions.
>
> On this sample data partition, this shows how the writer
> is filling in the holes, and the two "air holes" are likely
> a result of the reserved space handling. Again, being on an
> SSD, no attempt has ever been made to defragment the thing.
> And the green, is files which are contiguous and their
> clusters are in cluster-order. The yellow ones are "largely ordered",
> but as soon as one cluster goes out of line for such a file,
> the whole file will be yellow. Considering "how evil" fragmentation
> is, you don't see a lot of fragmentation there.
>
> [Picture]
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/wjRgwtLp/Sample-Data-Partition.gif
>
> *******
>
> This picture was done seven years ago. The top two panes are
> performance on a RAMdrive. Running a checksum program on
> a large file, one with a lot of fragments, one with no fragments,
> there is hardly any speed difference to the performance of the
> checksum program when we are measuring the file system stack
> penalty for fragments.
>
> [Picture} Top two panes = RAMDrive, bottom two panes = SATA SSD
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/ry7VnwF7/fragmentation.gif
>
> Whereas the bottom case, the seek time on an SSD could be 20 microseconds
> or so. And then the SSD speed does have an impact on the read rate of
> the checksumming process. When doing these experiments, you do a bit of
> fiddling first to clear the System Read cache.
>
> No attempt was made to run that on a HDD, as the results would
> be quite bad on an HDD. The rattling noise that would make, would
> get on my nerves.
>
> And the pattern on the storage there, was done with a purpose-built
> pathological tool. I wasn't doing my income taxes to make that pattern.
> Regular disk usage does not fragment like that.
>
> Is Windows cheating to make relatively good-looking partitions ?
> It's possible. I do not normally see suspicious patterns of the
> drive light, hinting that some rearranging is going on. The write
> algo has changed since WinXP days, whatever it is. Leaving holes
> in the cheese, seems to have something to do with later placing
> small files in the holes.
>
> Paul
Enjoy your posts Paul.
Just sayin'.

--
pothead

"Give a man a fish and you turn him into a Democrat for life"
"Teach a man to fish and he might become a self-sufficient conservative Republican"
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up,"
--- Barack H. Obama

On Wed, 1/15/2025 3:52 PM, -hh wrote:
> On 1/15/25 2:32 PM, Joel wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/15/25 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Linux is the only option worth pursuing.  macOS is weird and
>>>>>> expensive, Windows is bloatware beyond belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> macOS is free. Just needs a $600 mac to run it on.
>>>>
>>>> Windows Home preinstalled on volume-produced gear is virtually free,
>>>> self-installed Linux completely free, but yes that "$600" you cite
>>>> isn't cheap for the device it buys.  That OS upgrades are free is just
>>>> to incentivize buying/using an Apple device.
>>>
>>> Where said "isn't cheap" $600 is ~half what Joel's already spent...
>>>
>>> ...or for when the Lady protests too much, after deducting off his
>>> alleged $200 mistake of a second Windows OS license, roughly 50% less
>>> ($600 vs ($1150 - $200 = $950).
>>>
>>> But don't let actual math get in one's way of a good narrative!  /s
>>
>>
>> You keep including my monitor or video card or something, those were
>> choice add-ons that I could've trivially avoided with another HD
>> monitor.
>>
>
> Monitor?  Nope.
>
> Video Card?  Yup:  because you said that even though you'd researched your gear, you quickly realized that you screwed up as the i5's included one was inadequate for your desires.  But even if we subtract off the $100 you spent here, its still $600 vs your $850 spent
>
> But do feel free to provide a detailed cost list.
>
> Because even the $100 you spent on the video card is subtracted off too, your $850 spent is still higher than $600, but now its only by +30%.
>
>
> -hh

But you have control of your expenses.

It all depends on your objectives and budget.

An upgrade could be $500 or it could be $2000.

If you build your own computers, you can reuse
PSU, computer case (my daily driver case is 25 years old),
keyboard, mouse, and so on. My daily driver case, I think
that's about the fourth motherboard.

An upgrade can be mobo, CPU, RAM.
Maybe $200 for mobo, $100 for some RAM, $150 for CPU.
It wouldn't be much of an upgrade, but it would depend
on what you were driving previously.

The trick to hitting points like this, is to look
at trailing-edge parts. When the kids are buying DDR5
systems, you buy a DDR4 system. As long as the market
has some legs, a few reduced-cost motherboards will be
issued in a second wave (intended to "mop up" the
old processors), offering a small savings. The RAM can
be cheaper to quite a lot cheaper, than the current generation
RAM (DDR5).

The CPUs start off strong on price, but if you wait
long enough, the price of the lower end ones comes down.
The apex processor, the price does not usually drop
enough to make that an option for a budget consumer.

As long as the CPU has an iGPU, that "reduces the video card
tax on building a system". I have a 5600G and a 5700G, and
those have an iGPU. Can I play Crysis at 30FPS. No.
I can only play solitaire on those. They have movie decoders,
so movie playback does not load the machine at all.

To get the top CPU clock speed, you usually end up buying a
lot of cores you might not have wanted or needed. They don't
usually make 2 core CPUS that run at 6GHz. If they did, we
would buy those... because they would be very useful and
offer a "kick" the normal spread of CPUs does not offer.

You can use the Windows OS with the infinite grace period
if you want, or you can get one of those $20 licenses off
the Internet instead. Some people in the newsgroup here, have
partaken of the bargain items. No particular drama to mention.
Sometimes one of those keys does not work, but the merchant
doesn't usually make a fuss and another key will be sent.

*******

The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it.

https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-pc-builds-gaming

Paul

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 20:05:34 -0600, Hank Rogers wrote:

> I think people are better off to get some type of imaging software ...

On Linux systems, rsync works well. It’s essentially a bulk file-copying
utility. That’s all you need to backup/restore Linux systems.

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:33:26 -0500, -hh wrote:

> IMO the mini had historically been Apple's product to promote desktop
> customers to migrate from Windows, but its shortcomings have centered
> around how 90% of the market ignored it because it wasn't a laptop, and
> the other 10% are tower fetish geeks who were offended because it
> couldn't easily address every possible niche/corner use case.

Everything Apple sells in its “Macintosh” range is effectively a laptop
now, just packaged differently. In its move to ARM chips, it has
completely sacrificed all the traditional expandability that came with
desktop/workstation machines.

On 1/15/25 7:34 PM, Paul wrote:
> The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it.
>
> https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-pc-builds-gaming

$500 computer is a "budget" computer these days? Hehe :)

What do you guys do with your computers? I bet you grab it tight and it
takes you with it to a Jupiter flyby. Hahhahhahh :-)

Well, nothing wrong with enthusiasm, but enthusiasm is different from
fooling yourselves. Be mindful of the trap that the _less_ you might
need a computer to begin with, the more your brains may want to trick
you into paying high prices for it to somehow fill that void, making it
look like something worthwhile is getting done.

I've seen such mind tricks among gun lovers also. Even in those Shoe
freaks.

$1500 for a pair of sneakers..

On 1/15/25 8:34 PM, Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 1/15/2025 3:52 PM, -hh wrote:
>> ...
>> But do feel free to provide a detailed cost list.
>>
>> Because even the $100 you spent on the video card is
>> subtracted off too, your $850 spent is still higher
>> than $600, but now its only by +30%.
>
>
> But you have control of your expenses.

And freedom to make mistakes which can cost you more.

> It all depends on your objectives and budget.
> An upgrade could be $500 or it could be $2000.
>> If you build your own computers, you can reuse
> PSU, computer case (my daily driver case is 25 years old),
> keyboard, mouse, and so on. My daily driver case, I think
> that's about the fourth motherboard.

Sure, there can be reuse, but with laptops now 80% of the PC market,
this use case is increasingly niche.

And in the 'mistakes' lane, over-reliance on recycling old stuff can
gimp a system, which undermines the value of the upgrade effort.

Plus some costs aren't all that significant to worry too much about.
For example, if one wants to keep the old build running in parallel with
the new, then having a case & PSU for each is inexpensive and makes it
quite convenient... but that choice reduces the cost savings.

> The trick to hitting points like this, is to look
> at trailing-edge parts. When the kids are buying DDR5
> systems, you buy a DDR4 system. As long as the market
> has some legs, a few reduced-cost motherboards will be
> issued in a second wave (intended to "mop up" the
> old processors), offering a small savings. The RAM can
> be cheaper to quite a lot cheaper, than the current generation
> RAM (DDR5).

Sure, and the same "state of the shelf" sweet spot applies when shopping
for a complete system too.

> The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it.

Of course. Overall, a challenge with the DIY topic is differences in
motivation: is the DIY because money's tight? Or is the motivation
because tinkering with hardware is an entertaining hobby/pastime?
Both motivations can & do exist, and can get conflated in discussions.

-hh

On 1/16/25 12:40 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:33:26 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> IMO the mini had historically been Apple's product to promote desktop
>> customers to migrate from Windows, but its shortcomings have centered
>> around how 90% of the market ignored it because it wasn't a laptop, and
>> the other 10% are tower fetish geeks who were offended because it
>> couldn't easily address every possible niche/corner use case.
>
> Everything Apple sells in its “Macintosh” range is effectively a laptop
> now, just packaged differently. In its move to ARM chips, it has
> completely sacrificed all the traditional expandability that came with
> desktop/workstation machines.

Yeah, so?

Over 80% of the total PC market today are laptops.

The old school paradigm of getting elbows-deep into component upgrades
is a niche that's going to continue to be considered irrelevant by the
mainstream: I've already seen some components whose prices are far
higher than what they _should_ be, as state-of-the-shelf commodities.

-hh

On 1/16/25 1:41 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 1/15/25 7:34 PM, Paul wrote:
>> The enthusiast sites have more info, if you need it.
>>
>> https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-pc-builds-gaming
>
>
> $500 computer is a "budget" computer these days? Hehe :)

Sure is.

In 1981, IBM's original PC 5150 debuted at $2,880 for a 64K system with
one floppy drive. In today's dollars, that would be a shade over $10K.

Back in that era, PC Magazine's editor Bill Machrone quipped:
"the computer you want always costs $5,000."

And 1984's price buster of the TI-99/4A started at $525. What
percentage of your gross monthly pay was $525 back in 1984?
Don't know about you, but for me, it would've been around 33%.

-hh