flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Computer Rumors

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Now through my time, i've seen some interesting rumors about what should and what shouldn't be done when using a computer. I'm sure you've all seen your share of false rumors as well. I just thought, "What the heck? Why not just make a simple post about it here so we can just refer all the idiots to it instead of explaining over and over every time why we don't have to do that and that they don't need to yell at us for not doing that."

Probably the biggest one i've seen so far is the "The more you download, the slower your computer." Now of course, i'm sure we all can see where that came from. Yes, if you have a bunch of files on your computer, things'll get fagmented. Yes, there is also a statistical look of things that if you download alot you get alot of viruses that make your computer slower since they're hogging up things as well. But in all reality, if you defrag your drive once a week and that if you have good protection and/or are cautious of malware/spyware/etc, can you say that this rumor is true?

"Corperate programmers make the fastest and smallest cod out there." I don't think i need to comment that.

"He graduated from collage. He knows everything about computers." Once again, no comment neccessary.

"AOL, MSN, and Yahoo cause viruses." They don't cause viruses, but they can be used to take advantage of stupid (and un-cautious people) to get a few on the computer.

I also heard one about not turning off your computer by holding down the power button. I have no clue where that came from, i do it all the time and have no problems. Can anyone give me a little more info on this rumor? Also, feel free to post your own. It'd be nice to get a nice huge list, so maybe we can refer people to this post or organize an alphabetical list of rumors on out computers to just copy and paste the truthes into an instant message window and/or email form.

EDIT: Forgot the most common of all the ones i've seen...

"Some one hacked my computer and stole my password." No, you got stupid and trusted someone with your password and/or you had a keylogger. Chances are, you got stupid.
Post 22 Apr 2007, 01:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Quote:
But in all reality, if you defrag your drive once a week and that if you have good protection and/or are cautious of malware/spyware/etc, can you say that this rumor is true?


I can Very Happy. While there is good data structures that allows faster access them still has a problem, having more data means less speed. No matter if the structure is a balanced binary tree, a B-Tree, B*-Tree, the two latter are the faster but them still are faster when you have less data to organize. The hashed structures, which in ideal situations are O(1), them are not so ideal and when more data you have, more chances to get colitions you have (and the whole thing gets bigger so you have less chances of getting all the structure cached).

Quote:
I also heard one about not turning off your computer by holding down the power button.

After holding it for 3 seconds the computer is powered off without waiting for an OS clean shutdown. There is no problem if the OS finishes its shutdown sequence before that time, but if it can't then you risk the filesystem integrity and consistency of the OS and programs.
Post 22 Apr 2007, 03:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
I can . While there is good data structures that allows faster access them still has a problem, having more data means less speed. No matter if the structure is a balanced binary tree, a B-Tree, B*-Tree, the two latter are the faster but them still are faster when you have less data to organize. The hashed structures, which in ideal situations are O(1), them are not so ideal and when more data you have, more chances to get colitions you have (and the whole thing gets bigger so you have less chances of getting all the structure cached).


Ok, i lost that part. But at the same time, your games'll be just as slow or as fast after they've loaded into memory.

Quote:
After holding it for 3 seconds the computer is powered off without waiting for an OS clean shutdown. There is no problem if the OS finishes its shutdown sequence before that time, but if it can't then you risk the filesystem integrity and consistency of the OS and programs.


But you'd only ever be in danger during a filesave, right? Then again, there's always the page file to worry about, but that's no real biggy as long as you switch it every so often, which you should do anyway since it easily gets fragged.

EDIT: Plus, shoudln't any inconsitancies of the OS and or programs create an immediate problem anyway. Or in other words, if you shut down during a read or save of system data, shouldn't the system data be too corrupt to properly be read anyway? (Kinda makes you wonder what your system's storing...)
Post 22 Apr 2007, 03:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
You are forgetting that writing doesn't means write&flush, any opened file is compromised and the recently closed aswell. Due to the journaling capabilities NTFS have, the damage is minimized and you rarely need to execute a chkdsk but still there is room for damage (data not flushed from cache to disk is obviously lost).

When the game is loaded it could still require to access more files and every time the game opens a file the OS has to search for it. Note that perhaps the increase of searching time will remain unperceptible for the human eye, you actually need a really huge amount of files to see the delay. The data structures are not ideal but them are not bad neither.

Note that the base of this rumor probably comes from the fact that downloaded *programs* polutes the system by installing registry keys, putting files everywhere, etc, that are not removed when you uninstall the program(s).
Post 22 Apr 2007, 04:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
in winxp, if u check on the power options, it lets us choose what the os should do when we press the power button on "keyboard" or the cpu.

one option there is shutdown


Description:
Filesize: 11.09 KB
Viewed: 4449 Time(s)

Image1.gif


Post 22 Apr 2007, 08:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
You are forgetting that writing doesn't means write&flush, any opened file is compromised and the recently closed aswell. Due to the journaling capabilities NTFS have, the damage is minimized and you rarely need to execute a chkdsk but still there is room for damage (data not flushed from cache to disk is obviously lost).


As long as that hard drive isn't spinnin' i don't see where there's a problem, unless of course, for those people who forget to save, which i've done enough. Your OS shouldn't need to save weather it logged on or off or what not, so there shouldn't be any problem with that shutdown method. I don't see, though, where a problem would arise from reading something either.

Quote:
When the game is loaded it could still require to access more files and every time the game opens a file the OS has to search for it. Note that perhaps the increase of searching time will remain unperceptible for the human eye, you actually need a really huge amount of files to see the delay. The data structures are not ideal but them are not bad neither.

Note that the base of this rumor probably comes from the fact that downloaded *programs* polutes the system by installing registry keys, putting files everywhere, etc, that are not removed when you uninstall the program(s).


That's why we have plenty of "reg scrubbers." I have a few that i've tried. And you're right, not perceptible to the human eye. Usually the actual loading of the file is alot slower than the finding. Personally, though, i believe that DLLs and other such stuff should be included in a directory or sub-directory of the program and not uglify one of the most dangerous sections to edit. I swear, one of these days i'm gonna get some goofball programmer making "corporate software" that'll end up corrupting my registry file. But every time my aunt and her bf complain about my cousin downloading things, it gets relatively annoying how simple minded they are and how little they know how little her downloading affects... I'll save that story for another time and/or another post, but i'll just say now that i found out personally that she wasn't the one doing things that slowed her computer...

Quote:
in winxp, if u check on the power options, it lets us choose what the os should do when we press the power button on "keyboard" or the cpu.

one option there is shutdown


Dosn't solve much. I set that a while back. If you hold down your power button it'll still go off. That setting just says that if you press it, it won't start the shutdown process. I've since forgotten where that option was.... Thanks, now i found it again with thanks to you. =)
Post 22 Apr 2007, 12:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Plue



Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 151
Plue
Quote:
As long as that hard drive isn't spinnin' i don't see where there's a problem, unless of course, for those people who forget to save, which i've done enough. Your OS shouldn't need to save weather it logged on or off or what not, so there shouldn't be any problem with that shutdown method. I don't see, though, where a problem would arise from reading something either.
Nonono. There can be minutes from saving to actually writing to disk. Windows/Linux/Any sensible OS caches a lot of data, even data for writing, to improve performance.


Rumor: Internet Explorer IS the internet.

_________________
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Some poems rhyme
And some don't.
Post 23 Apr 2007, 20:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Rumor: [in Windows] There can be minutes from saving to actually writing to disk.

In reality the write cache timeout is very short (less than 1 second).
Post 23 Apr 2007, 21:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
Rumor: Assembly programmers DO program in binary.
Example: 1010101010101010010101010
This one is most said by HLL closed-mind people. Laughing
Post 23 Apr 2007, 22:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Rumor: Internet Explorer IS the internet.


I've seen that one way too often... Even by programmers. Which reminds me of people thinking that they can't go online just because they don't know their email address.

Quote:
Rumor: Assembly programmers DO program in binary.
Example: 1010101010101010010101010
This one is most said by HLL closed-mind people.


My highschool's programming teacher reminds me of this one. I always get some interesting faces when i tell him and others that i like programming in assembly.
Post 23 Apr 2007, 22:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Thanks to that I remember another rumor: Assembly (people usually says "Assembler") programmers knows everything!

The people tends to think that you need a lot of knowledge to write "xor eax, eax", that's the main reason of this rumor.
Post 23 Apr 2007, 23:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
LocoDelAssembly wrote:
The people tends to think that you need a lot of knowledge to write "xor eax, eax",
And conversely, some assembly language programmers believe that writing obscurely or counterintuitively, or with obfuscation, lends credence to an irrational belief that they are intellectually somehow superior to those of us mere ordinary mortals, people like me, with only an average, or, ok, perhaps slightly below average quantity of synaptic connections, people who believe in simplicity, (mov eax, zero), clarity, and transparency in all matters....., yes, vid, even clothing....
Smile
Post 23 Apr 2007, 23:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Thanks to that I remember another rumor: Assembly (people usually says "Assembler") programmers knows everything!

The people tends to think that you need a lot of knowledge to write "xor eax, eax", that's the main reason of this rumor.


Indeed. You're SUPPOSED to know more than your HLL programmers (since more knowledge is needed to prevent memory access errors and such), but no one ever reads the processor manuals, anymore.

Quote:
And conversely, some assembly language programmers believe that writing obscurely or counterintuitively, or with obfuscation, lends credence to an irrational belief that they are intellectually somehow superior to those of us mere ordinary mortals, people like me, with only an average, or, ok, perhaps slightly below average quantity of synaptic connections, people who believe in simplicity, (mov eax, zero), clarity, and transparency in all matters....., yes, vid, even clothing....


... hm...... XD I like writing confusing code, because it's more simple. I want to use two 4 byte variables rather than a confusing single 8 byte variable to represent a coord structure. Why do they have to make things so confusing!?

Which reminds me... Some people believe that C++'s lovely function overloading is perfect. That's why wcout << () prints numbers instead of wide characters. XD (Confuses wchar_t with unsigned short.)
Post 24 Apr 2007, 00:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
transparency in all matters....., yes, vid, even clothing....
hey, i don't care at all whether your clothes are transparent or not! That is your ... ahem ... preference.
Razz Wink
Post 24 Apr 2007, 01:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
I have a friend that knows a lot more about datastructures than me, she will finish its studies this year but is almost ignorant about assembly language. She is a HLL programmer but as you can see she knows more. About knowledge for preventing memory access errors and such are almost the same you need for C language (which is not a low level one).

Tom, I agree with you about intentionaly obscuring code but, obviously, not about your refuse to "XOR A, A". It was discussed already why you have to choose it and I can't find it obscure because it requires very basic knowledge about boolean algebra. Also note that not always is present the "mov A, ZERO" form, for example, how can you set an MMX register to zero? And a SSE register? Now we are not talking about microarchitecture things but about arquitecture (the part that programmers can control at will). The arquitecture lacks of instructions forms for assigning a constant (zero in this case) to an MMX or SSE register, for that reason we have to use boolean algebra to achieve our goal (or using a memory operand previously initialized with zero but apart of the overhead of doing that you could need more register if, for example, the code is position independent).
Post 24 Apr 2007, 01:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
I have a friend that knows a lot more about datastructures than me, she will finish its studies this year but is almost ignorant about assembly language. She is a HLL programmer but as you can see she knows more. About knowledge for preventing memory access errors and such are almost the same you need for C language (which is not a low level one).


In C, you can just ignore the sections on pointers and pretend that they're not needed and such. Assembly requires more understanding of the computer, hence why alot of materials i've found for assembly talk about the architecture, while the most i've seen in an HLL book about the topic was about a page of the architecture and why not to use assembly and a few pages of history. The reson i hate HLLs (more than anything) is that you're left in the dark way too often, and if something goes slow or requires lots of space, you can blame the maker of your compiler. Any HLL programmer that deeply researches how their program reacts at the machine level has my respect, but i can't stand how the mijority are brown nosers and criticize assembly then turn around and make slow programs that demand me to constantly upgrade my machine just to use them. Heck, it's not common, but i still see people including parts of the "compiler intermediate files" with their programs. Which brings me to another false rumor, "In high level languages, you don't need to know how the computer works. The compiler does that for you, and better than you'll ever do manually."
Post 24 Apr 2007, 01:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Plue



Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 151
Plue
revolution wrote:
Rumor: [in Windows] There can be minutes from saving to actually writing to disk.

In reality the write cache timeout is very short (less than 1 second).
I don't know where you got that info from, but I lost files after waiting far longer than 1 second.

_________________
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Some poems rhyme
And some don't.
Post 24 Apr 2007, 12:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Plue wrote:
revolution wrote:
Rumor: [in Windows] There can be minutes from saving to actually writing to disk.

In reality the write cache timeout is very short (less than 1 second).
I don't know where you got that info from, but I lost files after waiting far longer than 1 second.


Actually, Windows file caching is terrible. However it works, it doesn't seem to be consistent with anything I ever heard about disk caching.

Example: Disk caching is supposed to read files into memory so that they're not re-read off the disk every time they're needed if they're needed often. Well take MSN Messenger, it uses a .dll file to store it's resources translated in locales amongst other things... on my old PC, with 100 mb of disk cache and no other programs loaded, that thing reads the same part of that file right off the harddrive every single time once per second (was driving me nuts when I still had my old loud HDD: "hrc... hrc... hrc... hrc... hrc... ").

So how to explain that? That's one myth right there... that windows caches everything anyway.
Post 24 Apr 2007, 13:30
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
Another one:
I don't about yours, but my teachers think assembly programming is just for old DOS computers or for creating OS.
And they usually think the only assembler available is that old MASM16 or TASM.

I tell than that I program in assembly for Windows and they say I can't. That I must be using C++, Delphi or .NET. argh!
I hate this.
It feels like I should be the teacher and not the student.
Post 24 Apr 2007, 13:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
OzzY wrote:
I tell than that I program in assembly for Windows and they say I can't. That I must be using C++, Delphi or .NET. argh!
I hate this.
It feels like I should be the teacher and not the student.


A friend of mine went to this programming summer school or something like that. They were teaching them how to code, tho many of them already knew how to... were making a tic-tac-toe game in C++ in windows.

He tried doing it in C, but got frustrated and just wrote it in FASM. The teacher commended him for being the first of the class to finnish the game durring the lessons. The teacher never realized it was not written in C. Then my friend said he could rewrite it in Assembly pretty quick; the teacher insisted that that could take days and that there is no reason to do that when it is so easily done in C.

Laughing
Post 24 Apr 2007, 13:37
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.