• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Computer Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread II

Why are progress bars so unreliable? Not just the Windows ones (copying and moving files are especially bad for this), but other ones, like installation or whatnot. I don't think I've ever seen one that's not prone to getting stuck at a certain percentage and then jumping around.
Sometimes times because they measure how many parts or files have been loaded, instead of how many bytes have been loaded.

Other times it's because IO tends to be indeterministic. For example loading from a hard drive depends heavily on hardrive fragmentation, which the application does not know about. Similarly, Internet downloading depends on network traffic, and the protocols used (IP) will switch data rates mid-stream.
 
So, my friend is upgrading his graphics card and is willing to sell me his old one on the cheap. For me it would be an upgrade from a GT 430 to a GTX 460 by Pny. However, I know I will need a power supply upgrade from 430W to 500W to handle the new card, this should be sufficient, correct?

Also, on the product's Amazon page, it says that the card is overclocked, should I be concerned about burnout or anything like that?

Furthermore, I have a Dell Inspiron case, do you guys think my cooling will be sufficient in the case?
 
Why are progress bars so unreliable? Not just the Windows ones (copying and moving files are especially bad for this), but other ones, like installation or whatnot. I don't think I've ever seen one that's not prone to getting stuck at a certain percentage and then jumping around.

When I program in progress bars in my applications (and it happens SOMETIMES in web development, most recently in an online application I built) I generally do it like this:

1. Create a mental list of "milestones"
2. Create a variable that holds how many milestones have been completed
3. Increment the counter whenever each milestone finishes
4. Divide the 2nd variable by the number of milestones, multiply by 100, round, and you end up with a % of milestones completed.
5. Re-draw the progress bar when each milestone finishes, as well.

That is granted a poor man's version in terms of accuracy, but my users don't really notice it.

Progress bars just look like they have authority. Even if one deceives you, you'll welcome the sight one one moving the next day. If it's changing that must mean that stuff is happening and closer to completion!

Yes, but the calculations might not be based on time. Maybe rudimentary estimations, or.. heck, I don't know, maybe some autistic person made a more accurate progress bar for some product one day because he just really wanted to make it more accurate and not be based on variables and it was driving him nuts.

So who knows.. but if the programmers making progress bars have deadlines like me, and they probably do, they probably wing it in some way. It just doesn't pay off enough to worry about perfecting a progress bar. It's usually good enough in terms of user interface requirements even if it isn't fully accurate. There *is* a line, that when crossed, might demand a better progress bar.. and I've seen some bad ones myself.. but the programmers probably move on to their next task once the progress bar is working.. and then by the time the product is done, nobody really cares about a little progress bar. The product works and is awesome. End of question.

In terms of copying files, they probably use my lazy man's method. Bigger files take longer to copy, but each file only has 1 milestone.. That is going to lead to potential fistshaking, especially during large file copy operations.
 
I'd prefer to see the milestones themselves. Integrated into a progress bar if you want to be fancy, but an added (step/# of steps) would do.

This keeps the interface honest and transparent.
UI elements that exist to reassure the user are worse than useless if the user doesn't trust them.
 
Big companies like MS, Apple, Google etc should take real life feedback data and optimise their progress bars with accurate timings of each milestone. It would really set them apart.

I'm sure it would also help them optimise other things, like catching bugs and stuff, but really the progress bar accuracy is the biggest win.
 
That would often make the progress bars more complicated than the things they're supposed to be monitoring. It would also be a privacy concern.
 
As long as the progress bar doesn't hang at 99% for half an hour, I'm happy. M$ should be spending time fixing their new train-wreck of an OS rather then tinkering with progress bars, imho. ;)
 
Did not expect my question to turn into that discussion big one on progress bars.
 
Is it time to ditch the magnetic type hard drive for a solid state one?

I'm still amazed how much progress we made in such solid state means of storing information. They certainly could not have imagined it way back when the old Star Trek show first aired (if you remember, their storage was on large cartridge that looked like an 8-track).

Is it fast and reliable enough for gaming?
 
Is it time to ditch the magnetic type hard drive for a solid state one?

I'm still amazed how much progress we made in such solid state means of storing information. They certainly could not have imagined it way back when the old Star Trek show first aired (if you remember, their storage was on large cartridge that looked like an 8-track).

Is it fast and reliable enough for gaming?

Yes.

SSDs for PCs, HDDs for media servers and NAS.
 
SSDs for OSes, HDDs for actual storage.

Unless you can pick up a 500gb+ SSD reasonably. Between games, music, pics and a very small collection of movies, I'm using roughly that right now.
 
I'm building a computer and in the motherboard's description I got this line: "7.1 CH HD Audio with Content Protection (Realtek ALC898 Audio Codec), Supports THX TruStudio™"

By "Content Protection" do they mean some sort of DRM/copy protection? Or is this something else entirely? Thanks

Edit: Forgot to add a link to the page
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z77 Extreme4/
 
Yes. It means they're trying to make it fiddly to record streams going to your output devices.

It's futile as long as you still have something resembling a general purpose computer (rather than an appliance to run only officially sanctioned applications displaying officially sanctioned content for officially sanctioned users with officially sanctioned brains that have had the latest officially sanctioned patches downloaded into them) but they can make you google for a solution first.
 
SSDs for OSes, HDDs for actual storage.

Unless you can pick up a 500gb+ SSD reasonably. Between games, music, pics and a very small collection of movies, I'm using roughly that right now.

Right, that's the same thing as I said, you shouldn't be storing anything large on your PC, since it should only have SSDs.

Games, pictures and any programs you use should go on SSD.
 
Yes. It means they're trying to make it fiddly to record streams going to your output devices.

It's futile as long as you still have something resembling a general purpose computer (rather than an appliance to run only officially sanctioned applications displaying officially sanctioned content for officially sanctioned users with officially sanctioned brains that have had the latest officially sanctioned patches downloaded into them) but they can make you google for a solution first.

Anyone have any idea how intrusive this is? What might it prevent me from doing? I checked google but I couldn't find anything.
Thanks
 
Right, that's the same thing as I said, you shouldn't be storing anything large on your PC, since it should only have SSDs.

Games, pictures and any programs you use should go on SSD.

They don't fit.
 
Top Bottom