Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Manual DC Demotion [modified]

Manual DC Demotion [modified]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
performancequestiondiscussion
22 Posts 12 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • E Expert Coming

    Has anyone here ever had to manually demote a DC? You have to do about 100 steps, where a few say 'look everywhere' and delete this or that. This task took forever and many of those tasks we aren't 100% are done. Some say 'as best practice' and terms like that. What happened to my favorite company, Microsoft? I still love that company but still... This sucked.

    The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Lost User
    wrote on last edited by
    #2

    ExpertComing wrote:

    Has anyone here ever had to do this? You have to do about 100 steps, where do say 'look everywhere'. This task took forever and many of them we aren't 100% are done. Some say 'as best practice' and terms like that. What happened to my favorite company, Microsoft? I still love that company but still... This sucked.

    What?

    ExpertComing wrote:

    The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

    :confused: Others are say that we as in it have done nothing for something as they say you know! As in happening? -- modified at 21:53 Friday 1st June, 2007

    █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

    E 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • L Lost User

      ExpertComing wrote:

      Has anyone here ever had to do this? You have to do about 100 steps, where do say 'look everywhere'. This task took forever and many of them we aren't 100% are done. Some say 'as best practice' and terms like that. What happened to my favorite company, Microsoft? I still love that company but still... This sucked.

      What?

      ExpertComing wrote:

      The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

      :confused: Others are say that we as in it have done nothing for something as they say you know! As in happening? -- modified at 21:53 Friday 1st June, 2007

      █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

      E Offline
      E Offline
      Expert Coming
      wrote on last edited by
      #3

      Reread that. 9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity, I hope you get it now, if not, I can't help you.

      The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

      L P T 3 Replies Last reply
      0
      • E Expert Coming

        Reread that. 9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity, I hope you get it now, if not, I can't help you.

        The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

        L Offline
        L Offline
        Lost User
        wrote on last edited by
        #4

        It makes a little more sense, I think it needs to be reworded.

        █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

        E C 1 3 Replies Last reply
        0
        • E Expert Coming

          Reread that. 9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity, I hope you get it now, if not, I can't help you.

          The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

          P Offline
          P Offline
          Paul Conrad
          wrote on last edited by
          #5

          ExpertComing wrote:

          9.8m/sec/sec

          Or go with 9.8m/sec²

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • L Lost User

            It makes a little more sense, I think it needs to be reworded.

            █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

            E Offline
            E Offline
            Expert Coming
            wrote on last edited by
            #6

            It is a quote. I'll fix it, I never look at it, I don't know why I don't have the person who said it stated.

            The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • E Expert Coming

              Reread that. 9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity, I hope you get it now, if not, I can't help you.

              The only way to speed up a Macintosh computer is at 9.8 m/sec/sec.

              T Offline
              T Offline
              Tim Craig
              wrote on last edited by
              #7

              ExpertComing wrote:

              9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity

              That's acceleration, not speed.

              E 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                It makes a little more sense, I think it needs to be reworded.

                █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

                C Offline
                C Offline
                Christian Graus
                wrote on last edited by
                #8

                Only for the benefit of people who don't know that the value given represents gravity. I got it.

                Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

                E 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • T Tim Craig

                  ExpertComing wrote:

                  9.8m/sec/sec is the speed of gravity

                  That's acceleration, not speed.

                  E Offline
                  E Offline
                  Expert Coming
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #9

                  My mistake. Thanks for the correction. It is surprising how many don't know physics, I personnally think it should be a required course. It was one of my favorite classes.

                  The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

                  S P 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • C Christian Graus

                    Only for the benefit of people who don't know that the value given represents gravity. I got it.

                    Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

                    E Offline
                    E Offline
                    Expert Coming
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #10

                    Some people need more help than this forum, or any forum for that matter, can give.

                    The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • E Expert Coming

                      My mistake. Thanks for the correction. It is surprising how many don't know physics, I personnally think it should be a required course. It was one of my favorite classes.

                      The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

                      S Offline
                      S Offline
                      Stan Shannon
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #11

                      But "speeding up" a computer has nothing to do with acceleration, so now the quote makes no sense at all.

                      Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                      C 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • S Stan Shannon

                        But "speeding up" a computer has nothing to do with acceleration, so now the quote makes no sense at all.

                        Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                        C Offline
                        C Offline
                        Christian Graus
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #12

                        If an object accelerates, it's speed increases, doesn't it ?

                        Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

                        S 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • C Christian Graus

                          If an object accelerates, it's speed increases, doesn't it ?

                          Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

                          S Offline
                          S Offline
                          Stan Shannon
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #13

                          Of course, but just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there. If my machine is faster today than it was yesterday just because I turned it off and added memory to it then turned it back on, that does not represent acceleration in any physical sense, as in gravity for example.

                          Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                          G 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • E Expert Coming

                            My mistake. Thanks for the correction. It is surprising how many don't know physics, I personnally think it should be a required course. It was one of my favorite classes.

                            The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

                            P Offline
                            P Offline
                            Paul Conrad
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #14

                            ExpertComing wrote:

                            It is surprising how many don't know physics, I personnally think it should be a required course.

                            I agree. Some universities and colleges do not require physics in the Computer Science/Computer Engineering programs. I went to one university that let the student choose between physics/geology/chemistry. I started to go the geology way, but wound up with physics when I went to the last college I was at (they didn't give the option of these three different areas). I ended up really liking physics alot :-D

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Stan Shannon

                              Of course, but just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there. If my machine is faster today than it was yesterday just because I turned it off and added memory to it then turned it back on, that does not represent acceleration in any physical sense, as in gravity for example.

                              Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                              G Offline
                              G Offline
                              Gary Kirkham
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #15

                              Stan Shannon wrote:

                              just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there.

                              It would if you threw it out the window, which I think was the point of the quote. :)

                              Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read

                              S 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • G Gary Kirkham

                                Stan Shannon wrote:

                                just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there.

                                It would if you threw it out the window, which I think was the point of the quote. :)

                                Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read

                                S Offline
                                S Offline
                                Stan Shannon
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #16

                                Well, yes, but all I'm saying is that the original quote made more sense with "speed up" than it does with accelerate. "The only way to speed up a mac is to throw it out the window" is better than "The only way to accelerate a mac is to throw it out the window".

                                Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                                G J 2 Replies Last reply
                                0
                                • S Stan Shannon

                                  Well, yes, but all I'm saying is that the original quote made more sense with "speed up" than it does with accelerate. "The only way to speed up a mac is to throw it out the window" is better than "The only way to accelerate a mac is to throw it out the window".

                                  Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                                  G Offline
                                  G Offline
                                  Gary Kirkham
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #17

                                  I agree In a physical sense to speed up requires an acceleration, which is in reference to this statement:

                                  Stan Shannon wrote:

                                  just because its speed increases doesn't mean it accelerated to get there.

                                  Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S Stan Shannon

                                    Well, yes, but all I'm saying is that the original quote made more sense with "speed up" than it does with accelerate. "The only way to speed up a mac is to throw it out the window" is better than "The only way to accelerate a mac is to throw it out the window".

                                    Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

                                    J Offline
                                    J Offline
                                    Jorgen Sigvardsson
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #18

                                    Yes, I agree. The ambiguity made the joke fun. Now it's just, "ok, physics 101 - ha ha :zzz:"

                                    -- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • L Lost User

                                      It makes a little more sense, I think it needs to be reworded.

                                      █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██

                                      1 Offline
                                      1 Offline
                                      123 0
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #19

                                      [Message Deleted]

                                      R 7 2 Replies Last reply
                                      0
                                      • 1 123 0

                                        [Message Deleted]

                                        R Offline
                                        R Offline
                                        Rajesh R Subramanian
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #20

                                        The Grand Negus wrote:

                                        I agree. How about 32 FEET/sec/sec?

                                        I thought it ought to be foots ;p


                                        Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • 1 123 0

                                          [Message Deleted]

                                          7 Offline
                                          7 Offline
                                          73Zeppelin
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #21

                                          The Grand Negus wrote:

                                          How about 32 FEET/sec/sec?

                                          You know, I was taught the imperial system as a kid. Then the government switched to metric. When I did my physics degree I used all metric, so physical measurements pertaining to scientific papers only make sense to me in metric. If you tell me how much you weigh in kilograms or the outside temperature in degrees Celsius, it's meaningless to me. I need it in pounds and Fahrenheit. So 32 feet/sec/sec is like fingers on a chalkboard to me, but saying you weigh 180 lbs is nice!


                                          J 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups