Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Koiwai's commentslogin

It's actually the opposite, modern mode uses gpu for compositing, classic modes uses cpu, and any gpu would beat cpu handily in that task including integrated ones.

Unless, you didn't install the correct driver and used standard vga driver, or like in a vm which doesn't provide gpu acceleration.


The parent post refers to responsiveness, not throughput. Even if the GDI was fully accelerated, the compositor adds additional input lag because it has to sync with the monitor's refresh rate whereas without DWM the monitor displays whetever is on the framebuffer. The drawback is that you get tearing and damage artifacts (like the classic crash window[0]).

[0] https://mrdoob.com/lab/javascript/effects/ie6/


Not sure if this is exactly related, since it's beyond my understanding, but it seems game devs have been struggling to get things drawn on the screen at the expected time. (The speaker says things were much more straightforward on the Amiga. Progress works in funny ways!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0zT8YSSFzw


That is a different thing (i've seen the issue in my own games), it is really about how even if the game updates at 60Hz, producing stable 60fps and shows on a 60Hz monitor with vertical synchronization (vsync) enabled you can occasionally have some "stuttering" (IIRC he calls them "heart beats" in the article the video is about).

The main reason is that your game time and the monitor's "time" are not really progressing in sync and even with vsync you are actually reacting on what the monitor did in the "past". This is why it isn't a problem on fixed platforms like the Amiga since you more or less know how fast the system is and can simply use vsync for game updates too (in other words make the game dependent on the framerate and just ensure the framerate is more or less constant, which is easy on fixed hardware but much harder on something like the PC).

FWIW this is still a problem, but at least a "hack" that has become a bit common since the video and article were published (and Croteam also did) is to "smooth out" the time progression by averaging the time deltas of the last few cycles. This doesn't fix the core problem but it makes the "heartbeat" less likely to happen and be noticeable at the cost of -mostly imperceptible- drift between game time and real time (that you can always reset if it becomes too large anyway).


Classic mode does not use compositing at all, but the drawing routines of GDI etc were hardware accelerated already. Keeping a buffer around for every window for compositing could become a big performance problem and was part of the reason why Vista was considered slow. Mac OS X had this problem too.


I was curious myself, this link is a bit of an introduction to the mess:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct2d/com...

"GDI is hardware accelerated on Windows XP, and accelerated on Windows 7 when the Desktop Window Manager is running and a WDDM 1.1 driver is in use. Direct2D is hardware accelerated on almost any WDDM driver and whether or not DWM is in use. On Vista, GDI will always render on the CPU."


Here's a more honest and direct introduction than Microsoft itself could wrote: https://forums.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=55358

Especially follow the YouTube links demonstrating the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-gqx18UTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToFgYylqP_U


GPU doesn't nessisarily mean less lag depending on buffers and implementation.


I know this. Heard it a bunch. The composited path was still slower.


Well, my experience was modern mode is way more responsive, and I've convinced at least 5 friends on sight.


I've spent the last few days messing with Linux in both VirtualBox and VMWare and I found that disabling 3D acceleration leads to ~2x faster boot, and disabling desktop compositing (in the Linux guest) leads to 5x less lag when moving things around on screen.

I was surprised, because I thought using 3D acceleration and compositing would be faster.

Also, I run the VM at half res and used DPI workaround (.manifest file) to let Windows scale the VM instead of VirtualBox (VirtualBox scaling is very slow for some reason).


Linux in a VM doesn’t behave like Linux on bare hardware, and graphics acceleration in particular is a house of cards. You can’t draw any real conclusions from this.


If this is true, I think the nobel prize committee would happily make an exception for them.


They will not. They never have.


let me simplify that for you: how does a superconductor not violate one of the laws of thermodynamics?


All valid points but just below that comment someone asked if he/she was reading the new paper (apparently there's an older paper), he/she didn't respond/haven't responded yet.


They did now – https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/159g2k4/roomtemp...

Either way we should hear from people trying to replicate it soon.


Thanks for the update, after reading that, and the fact the patent was dated 2021, my faith is lost.


It's a bit hard to break it to you, but Santa isn't real.


What's your point?


Are you living in the fairy land? in the real world, Academic fraud is a thing.


Please explain the benefit of faking the result of this paper and destroying your reputation.



In other words, you agree with my original point.

> And why fake it in the first place? I don't see the benefit.


You don't see, I don't see, but I believe they saw.


What's the point with academic fraud at this level? If it's fraud, then what did they expect other than career suicide?


Does the thought that there might be some guy in a garage 5 miles from you replicating this baffle you?


The sheer size of the sample stuns me.


There's no valid evidence of that.


Well, I am sure that independent investigators will be welcomed with open arms any moment now to set the record straight. I am being facetious of course, because wherever these kinds of events transpire (and regardless of the alleged perpetrator) there seemingly magically pops up barriers to establishing what is actually going on.


What would be valid evidence? The post we're discussing, alongside the years of reporting, seem pretty valid to me.


Can you show me the part where the post documents systemic sterilization, or torture, or any of the “cultural genocide” claims?

Note that nobody claims there were no cases of the above; it’s just those cases also happen in eg American prisons.

(And of course note how simply asking a question - and suggesting the apparently missing evidence is, indeed, missing, gets quickly downvoted.)


I'm confused. Is your point that the rates in Xinjiang of forced sterilization and IUD implantation--in the general population, not merely in prisons--is equivalent to the rates of forced sterilization in American prison populations? I think that's exceedingly unlikely; there's no pattern of forced sterilization in American prison populations, though indeed a shameful history of such practices (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/30/california-p...). Compare that to population-wide sterilization campaigns in Xinjiang: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22311356/china-uyghur-bir....

And if that is your claim, is your point that a population-wide rate of torture and forced sterilization equivalent to that inside American prisons is...acceptable?

It's really unclear to me what you are trying to say with your repeated analogies to other human rights abuses. That there are multiple bad things in the world, so we should give up on trying to criticise them?

I don't think anyone takes the American Cancer Society to be saying that death by heart attack is good--merely that their focus is on cancer. So too, critics of systemic, widespread, and officially sanctioned torture and genocide in China are not saying that other torture--be it systemic or not, widespread or not, sanctioned or not--is somehow better. They're merely focusing on one particular hotspot, where the offenses are particularly stark.

Those who, like you in this thread, say, "But what about X", are hard to take on good faith. They never seem to be saying, "Let's also talk about X", or "how can we eliminate all torture." Rather, they seem to suggest that critics of widespread Chinese torture are somehow anti-Chinese, that the motives should be questioned, and, by implication, perhaps that well-documented Chinese torture does not exist.

It's deliberate obfuscation for the purposes of disinformation, as you are clearly engaged in here.


See, this is a common pattern in anything involving Adrian Zenz: by throwing together two facts, the growing usage of contraceptives - itself a healthy trend in a region where it’s common to have lots of kids (one child policy didn’t apply to Uighurs) - and several cases of forced sterilization, he gets to conclusion of “population-wide forced sterilization” - which is not supported by factual evidence.

As for “what about” - I agree that all violations of human rights matter. But if we ignore facts and believe propaganda instead, eventually we will forget about those facts. Just how most people don’t think much about Saddam’s victims because of how US lied to justify the invasion.

Can you show me the source for the claim that those crimes in Xinjang are officially sanctioned?



This only shows that they happen. That part is pretty well documented, but the same thing happens in Western prisons. What it doesn't show is that they were officially sanctioned, as opposed to being committed by a guard against the law.


Sure, and the Wansee Protokoll didn't come out until 1947 (and, famously, was itself quite euphemistic).

The entire topic of this thread is the disclosure of official documents which, like the Wansee Protokoll, expose the regime's real goals and practices.

Of course, there are people who still disbelieve that the Holocaust happened. I try not to argue with them online, once they have shown their true motives.


>The entire topic of this thread is the disclosure of official documents which, like the Wansee Protokoll, expose the regime's real goals and practices.

Again, can you show me where said document says so?


1 main desktop

1 router, you'd probably argue this doesn't count, but my router is debian running on consumer computer hardware, with custom vpn and routing.

1 file server, this one is not strictly at home, since it's located in my company's server room for the bandwidth, but I mainly use it at home over Internet.

1 gaming laptop, connected to TV.

1 lightweight laptop in EDC bag.

3 mining rigs.

ipad and android tablet.


While any modern operating system is the living counter point, so far it's manageable.


They aren't a counterpoint at all. They're confirmation. Security-wise legacy operating systems (Linux, NT, ...) suck. New security vulnerabilities are discovered every week and month in them to the point that nobody actually considers these "multi-user systems" any more and obviously every box hooked up to the internet better be getting patches really frequently.


For the record I said manageable not great or perfect.


Every (popular) modern operating system sits on decades old foundations written in C that can't just be replaced, so that's not a particularly strong argument.

It's noteworthy that Google is financing the effort to bring Rust to the Linux kernel, that Microsoft is also investing in the language and that there are newer, production usage focused operating systems written in Rust. (eg Hubris [1])

[1] https://github.com/oxidecomputer/hubris


Redox is probably a better example than Hubris:

https://www.redox-os.org/

Hubris is intended to run on microcontrollers in a very low-level context (e.g. no display), so is very unlikely become a desktop / user-facing OS.

(I work at Oxide, mostly writing Hubris code)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: