Search Results

Search found 11222 results on 449 pages for 'michael vs'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 21/449 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • Stack vs queue -based programming language efficiency [closed]

    - by Core Xii
    Suppose there are two programming languages; one where the only form of storage is one (preferred) or two (may be required for Turing-completeness) stacks, and another where the only form of storage is a single queue, with appropriate instructions in each to manipulate their respective storage to achieve Turing-completeness. Which one can more efficiently encode complex algorithms? Such that most given algorithms take less code to implement, less time to compute and less memory to do so. Also, how do they compare to a language with a traditional array (or unbounded tape, if you will) as storage?

    Read the article

  • LINQ: Single vs. SingleOrDefault

    - by Paulo Morgado
    Like all other LINQ API methods that extract a scalar value from a sequence, Single has a companion SingleOrDefault. The documentation of SingleOrDefault states that it returns a single, specific element of a sequence of values, or a default value if no such element is found, although, in my opinion, it should state that it returns a single, specific element of a sequence of values, or a default value if no such element is found. Nevertheless, what this method does is return the default value of the source type if the sequence is empty or, like Single, throws an exception if the sequence has more than one element. I received several comments to my last post saying that SingleOrDefault could be used to avoid an exception. Well, it only “solves” half of the “problem”. If the sequence has more than one element, an exception will be thrown anyway. In the end, it all comes down to semantics and intent. If it is expected that the sequence may have none or one element, than SingleOrDefault should be used. If it’s not expect that the sequence is empty and the sequence is empty, than it’s an exceptional situation and an exception should be thrown right there. And, in that case, why not use Single instead? In my opinion, when a failure occurs, it’s best to fail fast and early than slow and late. Other methods in the LINQ API that use the same companion pattern are: ElementAt/ElementAtOrDefault, First/FirstOrDefault and Last/LastOrDefault.

    Read the article

  • Responsive website VS mobile website

    - by Saif Bechan
    I am creating a new blog. Nowadays, especially for a blog, it's important that the websites are accessible for all devices. Now I have to make a choice on what to do. I have seen 2 options. Option 1 is to go with a normal fixed website, for example 960px wide (grid960). And for mobile users have a mobile version. This takes some more time, but then there are 2 good versions of the website. Option 2 I haven't seen a lot yet, creating a adaptive website, or also called responsive website. I am now looking into the LESS framework, where the website automatically switches to to required width. Only downside is that when the normal browser is re-sized, everything re-sizes. Another problem I found is that pinch-to-zoom on devices does not work. Now the question is, which one would you prefer for a blog. One that constantly changes layout when you move your device, or one where you have the choice to view mobile and normal. If there are any other options, please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Level Design V.S. Modeler

    - by Ecurbed
    From what I understand being a level designer and a character/environment/object/etc Modeler are two different jobs, yet sometimes it feels like a Modeler can also do the job of the level designer. I know this also depends on the scale of the game. For small games maybe they are one and the same, but for bigger games they become two different jobs. I understand a background in some modeling could not hurt when it comes to level design, but the question I have is: Do jobs prefer people who can model for level designing? This way they can kill two birds with one stone and have someone to create the assets and design the level. What is your opinion of the training? Does level design contain skill sets that make them completely different from what a modeler can do, or is this an easy transition for a modeler to become a level designer? Can you be a bad level designer but a good modeler and vice versa?

    Read the article

  • Talend vs. SSIS: A Simple Performance Comparison

    With all of the ETL tools in the marketplace, which one is best? Jeff Singleton brings us simple performance comparison pitting SSIS against open source powerhouse Talend. Optimize SQL Server performance“With SQL Monitor, we can be proactive in our optimization process, instead of waiting until a customer reports a problem,” John Trumbul, Sr. Software Engineer. Optimize your servers with a free trial.

    Read the article

  • null pointers vs. Null Object Pattern

    - by GlenH7
    Attribution: This grew out of a related P.SE question My background is in C / C++, but I have worked a fair amount in Java and am currently coding C#. Because of my C background, checking passed and returned pointers is second-hand, but I acknowledge it biases my point of view. I recently saw mention of the Null Object Pattern where the idea is than an object is always returned. Normal case returns the expected, populated object and the error case returns empty object instead of a null pointer. The premise being that the calling function will always have some sort of object to access and therefore avoid null access memory violations. So what are the pros / cons of a null check versus using the Null Object Pattern? I can see cleaner calling code with the NOP, but I can also see where it would create hidden failures that don't otherwise get raised. I would rather have my application fail hard (aka an exception) while I'm developing it than have a silent mistake escape into the wild. Can't the Null Object Pattern have similar problems as not performing a null check? Many of the objects I have worked with hold objects or containers of their own. It seems like I would have to have a special case to guarantee all of the main object's containers had empty objects of their own. Seems like this could get ugly with multiple layers of nesting.

    Read the article

  • Test driven vs Business requirements constant changing

    - by James Lin
    One of the new requirement of our dev team set by the CTO/CIO is to become test driven development, however I don't think the rest of the business is going to help because they have no sense of development life cycles, and requirements get changed all the time within a single sprint. Which gets me frustrated about wasting time writing 10 test cases and will become useless tomorrow. We have suggested setting up processes to dodge those requirement changes and educate the business about development life cycles. What if the business fails to get the idea? What would you do?

    Read the article

  • Technologie Roadmap: Portlet JSR286 vs Widget/Gadget

    - by Aerosteak
    Hello IBM got me confused (again). For many years IBM have been pushing for Portlet Containers with the JSR 168 and later the JSR 286 Specification. 2008-2009, IBM the Lotus division introduced the iWidget Specification. Based on my reading, it is a more dynamic and lightweight version of the Portlets, close to Google Gadget. It uses a different paradigm than Porlet while providing the same features. A major differentiator with this kind of client side technologies is that you don’t need a big and costly Portal infrastructure. To not fall in the ‘It depends on needs’ discussions, let consider the following: * New company, no legacy portlet, no portal in place. What are your thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • Compatibility of Enum Vs. string constants

    - by Yosi
    I was recently told that using Enum: public enum TaskEndState { Error, Completed, Running } may have compatibility/serialization issues, and thus sometimes it's better to use const string: public const string TASK_END_STATE = "END_STATE"; public const string TASK_END_STATE_ERROR = "TASK_END_STATE_ERROR"; public const string TASK_END_STATE_COMPLETE = "TASK_END_STATE_COMPLETE"; public const string TASK_END_STATE_RUNNING = "TASK_END_STATE_RUNNING"; Can you find practical use case where it may happen, is there any guidelines where Enum's should be avoided? Edit: My production environment has multiple WFC services (different versions of the same product). A later version may/or may not include some new properties as Task end state (this is just an example). If we try to deserialize a new Enum value in an older version of a specific service, it may not work.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Terminology: .NET C++ vs. traditional C++

    - by Mike Clark
    I've recently been working with a team that's using both .NET C++ and pre-.NET C++. I fully understand the technical differences between the two technologies. However, I sometimes feel like I'm floundering when it comes to the terminology used to differentiate the two. Example: Say we have two projects: ProjectA contains "C++" code that builds a .NET assembly DLL. ProjectB contains Visual C++ code that builds a traditional native Windows DLL. What is the best way to succinctly and terminologically draw a distinction between the two projects? Again, I'm not asking for an in-depth technical description of the differences between the two technologies. I'm just looking for names and labels. This is how, today, I might try to make the distinction when talking to someone: "ProjectA is a managed .NET C++ project" and "ProjectB is an unmanaged native C++ DLL project." However I am not at all certain that this terminology is ideal, or even correct. Please describe what you feel the ideal language to use in this situation (or similar situations) might be. Feel free to motivate your answer.

    Read the article

  • Juju MySQL adding units vs adding new service with relation

    - by user2291975
    What's the point of adding units to MySQL? Why not just create a new service with relation to the master node? MySQL doesn't support multi-master node so adding units to one MySQL service doesn't make any sense. If I create a second service as a slave and add units to that to act as multiple slaves still doesn't make sense because if the primary slave server dies all the unites attached to it become useless as well. Can anyone explain why I should add units to MySQL?

    Read the article

  • update-java-alternatives vs update-alternatives --config java

    - by Stan Smith
    Thanks in advance from this Ubuntu noob... On Ubuntu 12.04 LTS I have installed Sun's JDK7, Eclipse, and the Arduino IDE. I want the Arduino to use OpenJDK 6 and want Eclipse to use Sun's JDK 7. From my understanding I need to manually choose which Java to use before running each application. This led me to the 'update-java-alternatives -l' command... when I run this I only see the following: java-1.6.0-openjdk-amd64 1061 /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-amd64 ...but when I run 'update-alternatives --config java' I see the following: *0 /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk-amd64/jre/bin/java auto mode 1 /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk-amd64/jre/bin/java manual mode 2 /usr/lib/jvm/jdk1.7.0/bin/java manual mode 3 /usr/lib/jvm/jre1.7.0/bin/java manual mode I don't understand why the update-java-alternatives doesn't display the same 3 options. I also don't understand how to switch between OpenJDK6 and JDK7. Can someone please explain how I can go about using the OpenJDK6 for Arduino development and Sun JDK7 for Eclipse/Android development? Thank you in advance for any assistance or feedback you can offer. Stan

    Read the article

  • Axis-Aligned Bounding Boxes vs Bounding Ellipse

    - by Griffin
    Why is it that most, if not all collision detection algorithms today require each body to have an AABB for the use in the broad phase only? It seems to me like simply placing a circle at the body's centroid, and extending the radius to where the circle encompasses the entire body would be optimal. This would not need to be updated after the body rotates and broad overlap-calculation would be faster to. Correct? Bonus: Would a bounding ellipse be practical for broad phase calculations also, since it would better represent long, skinny shapes? Or would it require extensive calculations, defeating the purpose of broad-phase?

    Read the article

  • Python Coding standards vs. productivity

    - by Shroatmeister
    I work for a large humanitarian organisation, on a project building software that could help save lives in emergencies by speeding up the distribution of food. Many NGOs desperately need our software and we are weeks behind schedule. One thing that worries me in this project is what I think is an excessive focus on coding standards. We write in python/django and use a version of PEP0008, with various modifications e.g. line lengths can go up to 160 chars and all lines should go that long if possible, no blank lines between imports, line wrapping rules that apply only to certain kinds of classes, lots of templates that we must use, even if they aren't the best way to solve a problem etc. etc. One core dev spent a week rewriting a major part of the system to meet the then new coding standards, throwing away several suites of tests in the process, as the rewrite meant they were 'invalid'. We spent two weeks rewriting all the functionality that was lost, and fixing bugs. He is the lead dev and his word carries weight, so he has convinced the project manager that these standards are necessary. The junior devs do as they are told. I sense that the project manager has a strong feeling of cognitive dissonance about all this but nevertheless agrees with it vehemently as he feels unsure what else to do. Today I got in serious trouble because I had forgotten to put some spaces after commas in a keyword argument. I was literally shouted at by two other devs and the project manager during a Skype call. Personally I think coding standards are important but also think that we are wasting a lot of time obsessing with them, and when I verbalized this it provoked rage. I'm seen as a troublemaker in the team, a team that is looking for scapegoats for its failings. Since the introduction of the coding standards, the team's productivity has measurably plummeted, however this only reinforces the obsession, i.e. the lead dev simply blames our non-adherence to standards for the lack of progress. He believes that we can't read each other's code if we don't adhere to the conventions. This is starting to turn sticky. Now I am trying to modify various scripts, autopep8, pep8ify and PythonTidy to try to match the conventions. We also run pep8 against source code but there are so many implicit amendments to our standard that it's hard to track them all. The lead dev simple picks faults that the pep8 script doesn't pick up and shouts at us in the next stand-up meeting. Every week there are new additions to the coding standards that force us to rewrite existing, working, tested code. Thank heavens we still have tests, (I reverted some commits and fixed a bunch of the ones he removed). All the while there is increasing pressure to meet the deadline. I believe a fundamental issue is that the lead dev and another core dev refuse to trust other developers to do their job. But how to deal with that? We can't do our job because we are too busy rewriting everything. I've never encountered this dynamic in a software engineering team. Am I wrong to question their adherence to coding standards? Has anyone else experienced a similar situation and how have they dealt with it successfully? (I'm not looking for a discussion just actual solutions people have found)

    Read the article

  • Django vs Ruby on Rails [closed]

    - by Michal Gumny
    I know that this is not place for languages war, but my question is quite specific. I'm iOS developer and I have friend who is Android developer, we have idea to make some commercial project together, but we will need quite advaned back-end. We want to learn one of this two frameworks and their languages from scratch, so my question is what language is faster to learn, and write app, which is better for small start up

    Read the article

  • Functional/nonfunctional requirements VS design ideas

    - by Nicholas Chow
    Problem domain Functional requirements defines what a system does. Non-Functional requirements defines quality attributes of what the system does as a whole.(performance, security, reliability, volume, useability, etc.) Constraints limits the design space, they restrict designers to certain types of solutions. Solution domain Design ideas , defines how the system does it. For example a stakeholder need might be we want to increase our sales, therefore we must improve the usability of our webshop so more customers will purchase, a requirement can be written for this. (problem domain) Design takes this further into the solution domain by saying "therefore we want to offer credit card payments in addition to the current prepayment option". My problem is that the transition phase from requirement to design seems really vague, therefore when writing requirements I am often confused whether or not I incorporated design ideas in my requirements, that would make my requirement wrong. Another problem is that I often write functional requirements as what a system does, and then I also specify in what timeframe it must be done. But is this correct? Is it then a still a functional requirement or a non functional one? Is it better to seperate it into two distinct requirements? Here are a few requirements I wrote: FR1 Registration of Organizer FR1 describes the registration of an Organizer on CrowdFundum FR1.1 The system shall display a registration form on the website. FR1.2 The system shall require a Name, Username, Document number passport/ID card, Address, Zip code, City, Email address, Telephone number, Bank account, Captcha code on the registration form when a user registers. FR1.4 The system shall display an error message containing: “Registration could not be completed” to the subscriber within 1 seconds after the system check of the registration form was unsuccessful. FR1.5 The system shall send a verification email containing a verification link to the subscriber within 30 seconds after the system check of the registration form was successful. FR1.6 The system shall add the newly registered Organizer to the user base within 5 seconds after the verification link was accessed. FR2 Organizer submits a Project FR2 describes the submission of a Project by an Organizer on CrowdFundum - FR2 The system shall display a submit Project form to the Organizer accounts on the website.< - FR2.3 The system shall check for completeness the Name of the Project, 1-3 Photo’s, Keywords of the Project, Punch line, Minimum and maximum amount of people, Funding threshold, One or more reward tiers, Schedule of when what will be organized, Budget plan, 300-800 Words of additional information about the Project, Contact details within 1 secondin after an Organizer submits the submit Project form. - FR2.8 The system shall add to the homepage in the new Projects category the Project link within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage - FR2.9 The system shall include in the Project link for the homepage : Name of the Project, 1 Photo, Punch line within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage. Questions: FR 1.1 : Have I incorporated a design idea here, would " the system shall have a registration form" be a better functional requirement? F1.2 ,2.3 : Is this not singular? Would the conditions be better written for each its own separate requirement FR 1.4: Is this a design idea? Is this a correct functional requirement or have I incorporated non functional(performance) in it? Would it be better if I written it like this: FR1 The system shall display an error message when check is unsuccessful. NFR: The system will respond to unsuccesful registration form checks within 1 seconds. Same question with FR 2.8 and 2.9. FR2.3: The system shall check for "completeness", is completeness here used ambigiously? Should I rephrase it? FR1.2: I added that the system shall require a "Captcha code" is this a functional requirement or does it belong to the "security aspect" of a non functional requirement. I am eagerly waiting for your response. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • GLSL vertex shaders with movements vs vertex off the screen

    - by user827992
    If i have a vertex shader that manage some movements and variations about the position of some vertex in my OpenGL context, OpenGL is smart enough to just run this shader on only the vertex visible on the screen? This part of the OpenGL programmable pipeline is not clear to me because all the sources are not really really clear about this, they talk about fragments and pixels and I get that, but what about vertex shaders? If you need a reference i'm reading from this right now and this online book has a couple of examples about this.

    Read the article

  • Ask for Budget vs. Give Proposal

    - by Miro
    Should I ask a prospect what his budget is or just give out a price? He need: "a new web site, with nice effects but at same time very simple & funtional for my costumers & guests" It's a 5 page website for mp3 guided tour with 2-3 paragraphs of text on each page and 5-8 images on total + logo that needs redesign. It's my first 'over distance' job. (I don't know the guy personally and have never met him) Please let me know what is a good practice and how to proceed. P.S. Also what is an average price for Simple 5 page Flash website with some custom graphics. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Waterfall Model (SDLC) vs. Prototyping Model

    The characters in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare can easily be used to demonstrate the similarities and differences between the Waterfall and Prototyping software development models. This children fable is about a race between a consistently slow moving but steadfast turtle and an extremely fast but unreliable rabbit. After closely comparing each character’s attributes in correlation with both software development models, a trend seems to appear in that the Waterfall closely resembles the Tortoise in that Waterfall Model is typically a slow moving process that is broken up in to multiple sequential steps that must be executed in a standard linear pattern. The Tortoise can be quoted several times in the story saying “Slow and steady wins the race.” This is the perfect mantra for the Waterfall Model in that this model is seen as a cumbersome and slow moving. Waterfall Model Phases Requirement Analysis & Definition This phase focuses on defining requirements for a project that is to be developed and determining if the project is even feasible. Requirements are collected by analyzing existing systems and functionality in correlation with the needs of the business and the desires of the end users. The desired output for this phase is a list of specific requirements from the business that are to be designed and implemented in the subsequent steps. In addition this phase is used to determine if any value will be gained by completing the project. System Design This phase focuses primarily on the actual architectural design of a system, and how it will interact within itself and with other existing applications. Projects at this level should be viewed at a high level so that actual implementation details are decided in the implementation phase. However major environmental decision like hardware and platform decision are typically decided in this phase. Furthermore the basic goal of this phase is to design an application at the system level in those classes, interfaces, and interactions are defined. Additionally decisions about scalability, distribution and reliability should also be considered for all decisions. The desired output for this phase is a functional  design document that states all of the architectural decisions that have been made in regards to the project as well as a diagrams like a sequence and class diagrams. Software Design This phase focuses primarily on the refining of the decisions found in the functional design document. Classes and interfaces are further broken down in to logical modules based on the interfaces and interactions previously indicated. The output of this phase is a formal design document. Implementation / Coding This phase focuses primarily on implementing the previously defined modules in to units of code. These units are developed independently are intergraded as the system is put together as part of a whole system. Software Integration & Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing each of the units of code developed as well as testing the system as a whole. There are basic types of testing at this phase and they include: Unit Test and Integration Test. Unit Test are built to test the functionality of a code unit to ensure that it preforms its desired task. Integration testing test the system as a whole because it focuses on results of combining specific units of code and validating it against expected results. The output of this phase is a test plan that includes test with expected results and actual results. System Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing the system as a whole in regards to the list of project requirements and desired operating environment. Operation & Maintenance his phase primarily focuses on handing off the competed project over to the customer so that they can verify that all of their requirements have been met based on their original requirements. This phase will also validate the correctness of their requirements and if any changed need to be made. In addition, any problems not resolved in the previous phase will be handled in this section. The Waterfall Model’s linear and sequential methodology does offer a project certain advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of the Waterfall Model Simplistic to implement and execute for projects and/or company wide Limited demand on resources Large emphasis on documentation Disadvantages of the Waterfall Model Completed phases cannot be revisited regardless if issues arise within a project Accurate requirement are never gather prior to the completion of the requirement phase due to the lack of clarification in regards to client’s desires. Small changes or errors that arise in applications may cause additional problems The client cannot change any requirements once the requirements phase has been completed leaving them no options for changes as they see their requirements changes as the customers desires change. Excess documentation Phases are cumbersome and slow moving Learn more about the Major Process in the Sofware Development Life Cycle and Waterfall Model. Conversely, the Hare shares similar traits with the prototyping software development model in that ideas are rapidly converted to basic working examples and subsequent changes are made to quickly align the project with customers desires as they are formulated and as software strays from the customers vision. The basic concept of prototyping is to eliminate the use of well-defined project requirements. Projects are allowed to grow as the customer needs and request grow. Projects are initially designed according to basic requirements and are refined as requirement become more refined. This process allows customer to feel their way around the application to ensure that they are developing exactly what they want in the application This model also works well for determining the feasibility of certain approaches in regards to an application. Prototypes allow for quickly developing examples of implementing specific functionality based on certain techniques. Advantages of Prototyping Active participation from users and customers Allows customers to change their mind in specifying requirements Customers get a better understanding of the system as it is developed Earlier bug/error detection Promotes communication with customers Prototype could be used as final production Reduced time needed to develop applications compared to the Waterfall method Disadvantages of Prototyping Promotes constantly redefining project requirements that cause major system rewrites Potential for increased complexity of a system as scope of the system expands Customer could believe the prototype as the working version. Implementation compromises could increase the complexity when applying updates and or application fixes When companies trying to decide between the Waterfall model and Prototype model they need to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages for both models. Typically smaller companies or projects that have major time constraints typically head for more of a Prototype model approach because it can reduce the time needed to complete the project because there is more of a focus on building a project and less on defining requirements and scope prior to the start of a project. On the other hand, Companies with well-defined requirements and time allowed to generate proper documentation should steer towards more of a waterfall model because they are in a position to obtain clarified requirements and have to design and optimal solution prior to the start of coding on a project.

    Read the article

  • GPL vs plugin interfaces not designed with a specific application in mind

    - by Kristóf Marussy
    I am not seeking or in need of legal advice, but an interesting though experiment came to my mind. Imagine the following situtation (I cannot really think about a concrete example and I am unsure if a real manifestation even exists): there is a free (libre) api A licensed under some permissive license or even LGPL. Non-free application B implements this api in order host plugins, but there are other free software doing the same thing. Moreover, there is plugin C acting as a plugin under api A. It links to library D, that is under GPL, so C is also under GPL. Plugins using A are loaded into hosts via a dlopen-like mechanism and use complex data structure for host-plugin communication. Neither B nor C distribute any files that may be required for A to function properly (like headers containing the structure definitions of A or dynamic libraries containing helper functions for A written by the authors of A), but such things may exist. Now some user installs application B and plugin C on his machine, along with anything that may be required for api A to function properly. Then he proceeds and loads C into B and creates some intellectual property with B which is not a piece of software. Did a GPL violation happend at some point, and if so, who violated GPL and why? The authors of C violate D's license by making C possible to be used in non-free host B? This is a possibility because they can't give and exception of GPL (like one described in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF or http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface) due to D's license terms. The authors of B violate C's and D's license by making C possible to be loaded in B? This is a possibility because http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins disallows the mechanisms A uses for communitation between the free and non-free modules. The authors of A, because the api may be used (and in this case, was used) for communication between GPL'd and non-free software. This would be extremely absurd. The user, because at the moment of loading B into C, he made a derived work of C. I think this is impossible, because he does not distribute it. But would the situation change is he decided to release a configuration file of B which makes B load C as a plugin? Nobody, because A counts as a 'system library', and both B and C directly interact only with A, not eachother. In a sane world, this would happen... A concrete example of A could be some kind of audio (think LADSPA) or image processing api. However, I could find no such interface (that is free software, generic and is also implemented by commercial tools). A real-world example could also be quite enlightening.

    Read the article

  • VirtualBox host: Ubuntu vs. Windows XP

    - by iambriansreed
    In order to lengthen the lifespan of my machine I am replacing the weakest link, the hard drive and installing a new OS. I had planned on using xp pro as my virtualbox host and ubuntu as guest. After messing with ubuntu desktop and server I am really impressed and am thinking of reversing the virtualbox setup; ubuntu host xp guest. I would use XP for Adobe Fireworks, Netflix, and iTunes (maybe) that's pretty much it. Any reason not to do ubuntu host with xp guest? I know the xp vbox will run slower as a guest but really how much slower? It's a desktop. 4gb ram, 500gb disk, Pent D 3.2 ghz

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >