Blog Comments

  1. flyinghaggis's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    It'll be interesting to see how this latest generation of consoles match up as this is literally the closest they've ever been, architecture-wise, to x86 PCs. Historically though games consoles on launch have been massively more powerful and had much better graphics for the money than any equivalent PC of the time. I've owned a PC though every console generation from PSX though to the last gen and it's always amazed me how superior the console was next to PC's of the day. Even recently I recall playing games like PGR and Oblivion on my Xbox360 and there literally wasn't a PC you could buy (regardless of cost) that came close to it's 3D capabilities.

    I'd also disagree on the cost of consoles being more expensive. The PlayStation 3 was £425 on launch and even the xbox360 was £280. Going back further most Sony/MS/Nintendo consoles have been launched at around £300. When you take inflation into account modern consoles are actually cheaper! I'd agree that the games are starting to get worryingly expensive though I remember PlayStation 1 games retailing for £40 and that was 15 years ago so £50 RRP now isn't as bad as it could be. I still remember paying £65 for Streetfighter2 when it was released in 1993.

    Granted Steam sales make everything else look ridiculously expensive but honestly gaming has never been cheaper if you ask me!

    Kids today don't realise how good they've got it
  2. CAM's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Sadly they stripped DVD codecs from Win 8 without paying a ransom so that hurts using it for DVD playback.

    You could use VLC but your average consumer won't bother with that.
  3. sonofsanta's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Hear hear. I've been arguing much the same in the PS4 thread

    Steam has made my PC life simpler than my PS3 life. New game to install? Click download and Steam sets it up. Updates? Steam downloads it in the background. Even in Windows - I can't remember the last time my whole system was brought to its knees by a crash. At worst, the game itself crashes to desktop, which is rare. My 360 and PS3 have frozen in the past as well.

    When the PS3 wants to update, all of a sudden my system is completely useless until I agree to the update. Games and services that worked fine yesterday suddenly absolutely require the new update to work. Not even Windows Updates whinges so much! And should I forgot the PS3's incredibly sensitive nature and - shock horror - just click it off at the socket, I get whinged at next time I turn it on and asked to do a disk check.

    The one advantage of console gaming is meant to be ease of use. That's been completely eroded, from both directions.
  4. X-13's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    rabble! rabble! rabble! [I agree.]
  5. coldhand's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    awesome article, very nice write up... any chance of taking a peek at those docs?
  6. mavhc's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    On our 3 site system I only replicate static drives, resources, apps etc. Everything is mapped to DFS, but nothing users can change is replicated.
  7. oxide54's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    its really good for read only stuff. like software distribution shares and mandatory profiles.
  8. zag's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Excellently timed Blog post, I was just about to ask about peoples experiences with DFS, there is indeed a lot that can go wrong!

    I'm going to build 2 identical file servers and do a simple scheduled xcopy each night. Hopefully that just means I would have to redirect the files in an emergency and have complete piece of mind I always have a backup ready to be deployed.
  9. synaesthesia's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Aye, it's a lovely idea but just doesn't work with that amount of use. MS's guidelines suggest it's not ideal for environments with lots of constantly changing files. It was certainly a pain when things started to back up and things started going missing - it's only down to shadow copies being enabled that we didn't lose anything in the process.
  10. themightymrp's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    With regards your public documents folder in the libraries/start menu, there are a few guides I've seen on here that mention editing the .library-ms XML files to remove the links to public folders. Then deploying those edited files from a central share to each of the client PC's, overwriting the defaults.

    I'm glad I just read your blog actually, we were just about to start trying DFS-R to replicate students homedrives between 2 servers i.e. for failover reasons. But if the traffic generated by lots of users (thinking in the region of 1700) is gonna stuff things up I may have to do something else. I've only tested DFS with small folders and a couple of test accounts to see how it works :/
  11. synaesthesia's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Indeed. We certainly don't have the budget for anything like a decent SAN or clustered servers. It would be nice but I've no idea how we'd ever be able to convince people of it. Shame really, DFS is a cracking idea - if only it could be made a little more modular. For instance, it'd be good to be able to install a NIC in each machine which is dedicated to DFS-R. Still, storage speed will have a large impact on how well it'd work and that remains the bottleneck. One day, maybe!
  12. SYNACK's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I believe the solution is clustered servers with shared storage on something like a SAN. That was the SAN should stay up and each of the cluster servers can be dropped for matinence without effecting users too much.

    I too have tried DFS-R and it causes more problems than it solves most of the time when used in a high or heavy transaction environment despite their improvements.
  13. john's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I know Stuart @TheScarfedOne was also there but he did a park and ride this time, I didn't make it and neither did our fellow F1 criminal mind @timbo343
  14. synaesthesia's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Yeah it's all separate but Silverstone themselves try and co-ordinate all together. Glad to hear people actually there were in decent spirits all things considering! That's one thing us Brits are fantastic at
  15. Heebeejeebee's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I know - that's why I praised them separately.

    All staff were good.

    HBJB
  16. glennda's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    @Heebeejeebee The Campsites run completely seperate are they not from the actual Silverstone circuit i.e you book a ticket to the race track but have to get camping from a third party? That was always my understanding of the situation silverstone all the times I have been there.
    Updated 9th July 2012 at 02:41 PM by glennda
  17. Heebeejeebee's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    ... Oh and I've been to Donnington and it was worse.

    HBJB
  18. Heebeejeebee's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Having just got back from Silverstone I cannot fault the track and the staff at all. They were sympathetic, helpful and generally top notch. The camping however could have been better organised if a wet weather plan had been devised. This could have prevented the following:

    Firstly the car park was about a mile from the campsite, only had one row that had any boards laid down for traction and was already churned up on Thursday. Most people had to do four or five trips per person from car to tent to get all their gear in - this didn't help the mud situation at all.

    Although I understand the reason for not letting cars park next to the tents it might have been easier and probably would have caused less foot traffic and therefore less mud churning to let them park at the top of the field they were parked in.

    More loo blocks (that don't leak into the mud ).

    Better paths (stones rather than sandy/dirt stuff).

    A decent exit strategy: I queued for about four hours to get out while cars were being pushed and pulled in all directions through the mud. It was so muddy tractors were getting stuck. All the while the camper vans were being let out first from a different field. If this was a planning thing then people should have been informed so. The piece of paper we were given just said the car park exits would be open.

    Having said that there was no ill temper from anyone and the car park staff were also great.

    Certainly the rain that had been constant before Thursday didn't help, nor the previous events held there in the past weeks. The fields simply could not recover in time. My tent virtually slid down the campsite on top of a river of mud. I was cold, wet and a bit fed up for most of the weekend but at least the sun came out for the duration of the race. Sadly I wasn't expecting it and got my head and nose burnt

    Freak events compounded by no respite. That's all.

    HBJB
  19. sonofsanta's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    People love a bandwagon.

    "They should have seen this coming, it's Britain after all" - indeed, we all predicted flash flooding in July, that happens every year, doesn't it?
    "Donnington would have done it better" - that being the Donnington that almost got given the GP but didn't at the last minute as its infrastructure wasn't up to scratch? Genius.

    And they wonder why the country is going to the dogs.

    (insert joke about going to the greyhounds after being unable to get into the GP)
  20. glennda's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I say having been and worked at this place it makes some places look very very small in comparison. Crowds are at around 130,000. Silverstone themseleves cannot be blamed for the Campsites AFAIK they are completely separate and if you turn up on other weekends in the year they have cows in. Major Investment has been made in the infrastructure around it (I've been around 20 times in the last 4 years) and a lot has changed. They are however also trying to push for more things like Music events to be held inside the track to raise funds towards more improvements.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast