I think that the name rybka for strongest chess engine refers to siamese fighting fish. what you think ?
AND: The Siamese fighting fish has been used as the default background in the first official beta version of the Windows 7 operating system, in an apparent reference to the name "betta".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_fighting_fish
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Microsoft to add more anti-piracy features to Office 2010
Microsoft is adding more “Genuine Advantage” features to its forthcoming Office 2010 release to make the product harder to pirate.
The company is planning to add new volume-licensing activation technologies to Office 2010 in an attempt to thwart the pirating of volume-license keys, Microsoft officials said via a press release. Microsoft also is adding more counterfeit-detection and tamper-resistant features to Office 2010, the press release says. It sounds like Microsoft will limit the ability of Office 2010 users to do an “Anytime Upgrade” to those users who those who allow Microsoft to do a Genuine Advantage scan.source:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3790
and
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Aug09/08-25AntiPiracy.mspx?rss_fdn=Top%20Stories
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Microsoft Visual Studio upgrade holds dynamic language capabilities
Microsoft is busy factoring in the growing use of dynamic languages in its planned upgrade to the Visual Studio software development platform.
"C# 4.0's major themes are interoperability with dynamic programming paradigms and improved Office programmability. Dynamic lookup, a new feature in C# 4.0, allows you to use and manipulate an object from IronPython, IronRuby, JScript, the HTML DOM, or a standard .Net library in the same way, no matter where it came from," Somasegar said.
A dynamic keyword capability in C# 4.0 allows a type to be resolved dynamically at runtime rather than in a static fashion compiled at runtime. "This allows dynamic languages to expose their objects to C# in a way that feels natural to a C# programmer," Somasegar said.
from: http://infoworld.com/print/88433Thursday, August 20, 2009
TweakUAC
I want to introduce a program to disable UAC in vista. this program can disable UAC in 2 modes:
1- Turn UAC off : This option turns UAC off completely and you need restart your computer.
2- Switch UAC to the quiet mode: This option does not turn off UAC; instead, it only makes UAC to operate in the quiet mode. In the quiet mode, UAC does not display the elevation prompts for the administrators. That is, when you attempt to do an administrative task, you will be allowed to proceed automatically, without prompting you to confirm the operation.
download from: http://www.tweak-uac.com/download
1- Turn UAC off : This option turns UAC off completely and you need restart your computer.
2- Switch UAC to the quiet mode: This option does not turn off UAC; instead, it only makes UAC to operate in the quiet mode. In the quiet mode, UAC does not display the elevation prompts for the administrators. That is, when you attempt to do an administrative task, you will be allowed to proceed automatically, without prompting you to confirm the operation.
download from: http://www.tweak-uac.com/download
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The generation gap: Windows on multicore
I see a comparison: Windows XP vs Vista vs Windows 7
There are two key takeaways from the above data points. First, the workloads still run much slower on Vista than on XP. This is true for both dual- and quad-core systems. Second, Vista scales better than XP when moving from two to four CPU cores. This is demonstrated by the way that Vista closes the performance gap with XP as you increase the core count. Taken to its logical conclusion -- and disregarding for the moment external factors, like bus speeds, I/O contention, and memory latency -- Vista would ultimately overtake XP when the core count reaches between 32 and 64.
For example, when viewed under the same processor-utilization parameters as Windows XP, Windows Vista consumes 40 percent more CPU cycles per database transaction on our dual-core test bed and 44 percent more on our quad-core test bed. Similarly, Vista chews up 30 percent more cycles when executing our workflow transaction loop on dual-core and 27 percent more cycles on quad-core.
It should come as no surprise that Windows 7 performs very much like its predecessor. In fact, during extensive multiprocess benchmark testing, Windows 7 essentially mirrored Vista in almost every scenario. Database tasks? Roughly 118 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 92 percent slower) and 19 percent slower than XP on quad-core (identical to Vista). Workflow? A respectable 38 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 98 percent slower) and 59 percent slower on quad-core (Vista was 66 percent slower).
Source: http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-windows-multicore-273?page=0,2&source=rs
There are two key takeaways from the above data points. First, the workloads still run much slower on Vista than on XP. This is true for both dual- and quad-core systems. Second, Vista scales better than XP when moving from two to four CPU cores. This is demonstrated by the way that Vista closes the performance gap with XP as you increase the core count. Taken to its logical conclusion -- and disregarding for the moment external factors, like bus speeds, I/O contention, and memory latency -- Vista would ultimately overtake XP when the core count reaches between 32 and 64.
For example, when viewed under the same processor-utilization parameters as Windows XP, Windows Vista consumes 40 percent more CPU cycles per database transaction on our dual-core test bed and 44 percent more on our quad-core test bed. Similarly, Vista chews up 30 percent more cycles when executing our workflow transaction loop on dual-core and 27 percent more cycles on quad-core.
It should come as no surprise that Windows 7 performs very much like its predecessor. In fact, during extensive multiprocess benchmark testing, Windows 7 essentially mirrored Vista in almost every scenario. Database tasks? Roughly 118 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 92 percent slower) and 19 percent slower than XP on quad-core (identical to Vista). Workflow? A respectable 38 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 98 percent slower) and 59 percent slower on quad-core (Vista was 66 percent slower).
Source: http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-windows-multicore-273?page=0,2&source=rs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)