Electrical question - power factors

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh but you would. It's part of your normal level of incoherence.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
More like your normal lack of comprehension skills. Do you find it difficult to communicate with people with regional dialects?

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
its called 'communication'
If you wat to post rubbish that cant be understood, that's your choice, and its our choice to comment or simply ignore it.
I'm
  Quoted Text Here  
You're just saying that..

On 06/12/2011 00:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
s/cant/can't/

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
s/wat/want/ s/cant/can't/ s/its/it's/
Try taking your own advice.
MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
How did you know that those were the transformations needed to correct that text?
Without understanding what it was trying to say..already?
Communication is the name of the game, and my execrable typing is sufficient, if not perfect.
  Quoted Text Here  

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
One rule for you and one rule for me in other words.
MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Why do you need to lie? You understood what I was saying despite the imperfections. Its when you can't understand what someone is saying that the real problems start.
Sometimes spelling and punctuation and grammar are crucial to avoid ambiguity.
"fruit flies like a banana"
  Quoted Text Here  

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You've been to the :::Jerry::: school of Usenet. Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar now.
MBQ

On 07/12/2011 14:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Like that "illusive" someone used the other day. I'm still not certain they didn't mean it.
Andy

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Why?

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
A decent processor uses 130 watts. A decent graphics card uses 75, 150, or 225 watts.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
More twaddle from the Loo-tenant. My Mini uses no more than 110 for everything. And usually, considerably less than that (fan almost never goes on).

Tim Streater wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Dell R610 1U rack mount server - currently 184W assuming 0.95 PF.
That's nearly idle - VMWare ESXi 4.1, one Windows Server 2008 VM running vCenter.
But not bad for a 12 core, 96GB RAM server. Be happy to report on its consumption with 30 VMs on it in about 2 weeks...

  Quoted Text Here  
There will be no heating required in that room.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Indeed. In fact there is an arse load of cooling, being a datacenter.
Personally I feel embarassed that 100VMs will be running on 11U's worth of rack. But that's progress...

Tim Watts wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
tyerrs ..my Bro in law used to ne a freelance IBMer - now just freelance and making even ore - and his game is re-engineering corporate IT strategies..'out with 50 boxes running Windows NT, in with a blade server, RAID disk and VMware, and then they stick the 50 NT installs back on. Saves a fortune in maintenance, cooling, hardware and power.."
(It might not be NT. whatever corporate windowish crap is current - was current - 7 years ago).

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:15:35 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh, is he still here?

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Look you ignorant fool, some people have more powerful machines than your overpriced Apple shite, and make full use of all the processor cores (and the graphics card cores).
Go and read up on the Intel site and see what an i7 processor consumes. Then go read up on high spec graphics cards with twin PCI Express power connectors.

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Not these days. More cycles per watt us the holy grail of processor designers.
Oddly enough I was talking to one of tee designers of the original ARM chips..
"Well we wer Acorn, and we had no money, and we wanted a processor to make microcomputers. Intel had money. Sun had money. Motorala had money, and so did MIPS to while we went RISC with as few transistors on the chip as we could get away with, to keep fab costs down, they put lots on.
So we ended up with a small chip that went bloody fast and was very cheap. They ended up with bigger chips that went bloody fast and got hot.
Only much later, when people started building battery operated computers did we realise we had - through sheer poverty - designed the best chip on the market, in terms of computation power per watt. The rest, is history"
:-)