Microsoft Windows

So, I was trying to find some equivalent software between Mac and PC. I notice that there is virtually never a directly equivalent application, but I came to determine that Device Manager and System Profiler.

Anyway, I feel that I get more information from the Mac application and with less annoying dialog boxes. However, one can disable devices right from there on the PC. I think that apple gives you enough information to remove the appropriate KeXT's but Windows should not allow you to disable the processor, etc. It can get very dangerous. So, I am going to have to side with the System Profiler but I do give Windows 7 Device Manager its honorary mention. However, I do like how it can let you view the devices of other computers, and scan for hardware changes. But, then again Mac has console for that. I guess if you put System Profiler with Console then you get the same functionality.

This is why I don't like debating OS's for each bit of software, because there is rarely one software that has a functional equivalent so note that I am not comparing OS's, but rather comparing two similar (although not equivalent) pieces of software.

Little Trick

Let's say that you cannot find your mouse. What do you do?

The easiest thing to do is to just push your mouse or trackpad all of the way to the top left. After one or two strokes, depending on the size of your monitor, the mouse will be at the top left where it is fully visible.

Windows 7: File Manipulation Dislikes

I think that when you are using Windows Explorer in Windows 7 there is a problem with the overall idea. They give you too much information that is not necessary at the time when you are performing and action, particularly copying and pasting files.

This is proof to my theory that one of the major problems of Windows Explorer in Windows 7 is a lack of an intuitive system. It just doesn't know what to show you when. The only time it does is when it simply modifies the bar below the menu bar that gives you options. Even then, the location of items in the "organize" menu is not intuitive.

If Microsoft wants to get going they are going to have to make more intuitive products.

Data Encryption

So, I was contemplating some security ideas.

I thought this might be safe:

1. User 1 has his file and adjusts the binary on a side determined by his private key and reversible by his public key

2. This side is modified/locked

3. User 2 modifies/locks his side. It is important to know that 1 at each end of the halves must not be modified.

4. User 1 unlocks his side

5. User 2 unlocks his side

However, after contemplation I realized it is still not safe.

If user 2 used some form of redundancy to recover what he locked he must be protected from Mallory otherwise his lock can be found.

Also, Mallory only needs to accept the proper amount of data packets. If she knew both halves after User 1 initially sent it she could then notice what changes were made by User 2. This meant that Mallory could deduce what User 2 encrypted. Now, all she has to do is note what was decrypted by user 1 and now she has both halves.

I don't think data can be TRULY 100% always secured. What do you think?

Then, one could say that the users should be able to modify anything, even modify what was modified by the other user. So, let's say that happens. Well, in order for user 1 to decrypt their side they might would have to put it back in order. For example, let's say I sent YOU 10101. I encrypt it to 11101. Then you, not aware of what I corrected, encrypt it to 10001. I couldn't simply undo my actions because that means I change it to 11101 and send it to you. You would then undo your corrections and get 10001, which is obviously not 10101. This is lossy and lousy. Anyway, so then, I would use a redundant/error-checking system. Now, if Mallory could crack my computer they would have that. Thus, the message is not secure.

In sum, you can only have a secure setting if compression, and encryption are used to the fullest extent AND Mallory can not get into your computer.

PS3 and/or XBox 360 Emulator: Part 2

New fact: The PS3 doesn't necessarily use every processor so computers might be able to handle more than we expected

Anyway, conversion to a different processors machine code would be the best option (because obviously TIME and SPACE isn't enough when running conditionals, which are a common solution to emulators.) For example, one would convert 01 in an Intel processor to it's equivalent in a PPC processor. Thus, it would be readable on a PPC processor. Ofcourse, the only problem is that not every processor has equivalent commands. So, the program would have to be dynamic enough that it could develop code that would use the most low-level commands of each processor to recreate/emulate the other commands. It could watch the commands virtually and then run if else statements using a map algorithm to find the "path" that emulates the initial command.

This should be FUN, because times are changing! Software is going to have to become more efficient, or those 500 GHz and theoretical 1 THz processor could just come out.

I learned something new about emulators...the hard way

I was trying to emulate a processor from the mid-1990's. Unfortunately, I dove write into the code with minimal studying of documentation, and no overall plan. I must warn you that there are a few things that you really want to do beforehand.

1) Learn about the processor (registers, accumulators and all)

2) Learn about the each machine code

3) Write the functions for each piece of opcode, then write the case statements that test which piece of machine code is going through

NUMBER THREE MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER.

PS3 and/or XBox 360 Emulator

Sorry, for all of you who thought this page you just found on google would supply you with an emulator of a system from the seventh generation.

I know it can be done and it can be completed in less than 10-20 years. Everyone complains that graphics and CPU's aren't efficient enough. I am aware especially since the CPU's in computers are running heavier OS's and such.

The question I propose is: does a emulator user really, truly need an emulator that runs graphics perfectly? Well, NO unless they need it at which point they would want great graphics and buy a great card that can handle it. So, my solution to the graphics card problems with the more advanced emulators would be to just make it lossy (like a JPEG.) We don't need all of the data for the game to continue. It can be slightly pixelated. Again, if that was not good enough people that need it to be better would end up going out of their way to buy that new card.

I do not have a general solution to the fact that the PS3 has 8 cores. Ofcourse, what one can do is use less cores because I am sure that it requires those eight cores to be amazing but maybe it will work fine with just 4.

Nevertheless, I propose what I think is the best solution. Convert the low-level assembly code in the game file or ROM into assembly code for your specific processor. Everything would process well...i think. The approach could be like that of Windows Emulator(Wine.)

What do you think?