Topic: [REL] DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_aug16.7z.7z
don't understand the naming scheme but here' an update for dell and viewsonic drivers
Re: [REL] DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_aug16.7z.7z
lol, yeah I didn't either 
Helmi explained it and its also been now updated ion the sticky thread about releasing them.
The last number is the date in a modified version of the international date format, (which is YYYY-MM-DD) - which makes it evenly confusing for everyone as I have never seen it used anywhere ever except here
so today being 18th of ausgust 2007 = 2007-08-18 in IDF and in driverpack format is 070818 so pack would be DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_070818.7z
- JakeLD
- Moderator, Sysprep & BartPE Master
- Offline
Re: [REL] DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_aug16.7z.7z
Could you tell me which drivers you added ? I will include them to changelog.txt. It's important to write everything down 
- Helmi
- Moderator & Translator (German)
- Offline
Re: [REL] DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_aug16.7z.7z
chud wrote:
The last number is the date in a modified version of the international date format, (which is YYYY-MM-DD) - which makes it evenly confusing for everyone as I have never seen it used anywhere ever except here
Well, I think I did everything to explain the reason behind this scheme (which, sake for the DD, is also used on the official packs, so at the end of the day it should be less confusing...).
It's really not my fault if the rest of the (perceived, I have seen it being used a lot previously, mostly by folks who apparently think in the same way I do 
) world can't stick to ISO norms (which are valid internationally)...
Now, I don't know where you guys are from, but I guess those having the most problems with come from the anglo-american countries (UK and USA).
And that's probabaly due to the fact that you completely messed up your date format for reasons totally beyond me 
Which may also be explained by the fact that you still stick to Imperial measurements in other cases (lenght, temperature, volume, weight, just to name a few) whereas the rest of the world once again has adopted the Système International, which, in turn, is now also part of the ISO norm...
Alright, if you aren't from the aforementioned countries, then please disregard the above.
But then I can even less explain your problems with the scheme.
Anyway, this is getting way too lenghty alread.
The point is, we need to agree on and stick to an unified naming scheme which also represents the date of the last change in a way it can be easily referenced by potential contributors to these packs.
If anyone has an idea how to do this even better than with the YYMMDD format, then for God's sake please share it.
I cannot think of a better one myself, but then again I find it anything but confusing
I am open for suggestions that actually improve the current situation
- JakeLD
- Moderator, Sysprep & BartPE Master
- Offline
Re: [REL] DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_aug16.7z.7z
I think your standard is fine Helmi, I repacked it and added more drivers.
- Jaak
- Old Timer Rookie
- Offline
Re: [REL] DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_aug16.7z.7z
I do know that for main packs, 70822 is lower than 7083
(for testpacks, I dropped the date scheme because of that)
This is also why I currently recommend that QSC is cleared before Base runs, and that one uses only the packs one is going to really use in the folders base is to stream.
Oh, and I recommend using QSC even in method 2.
We have a few bugs we seldom see when QSC is used.
The answer was 42?
Kind regards, Jaak.
Kind regards, Jaak.
Re: [REL] DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_aug16.7z.7z
tbh, if the full YYYY-MM-DD was used with hyphens, it would probably be clearer it related to a date at least.
...and although bit is compleltey offtopic, Imperial measures advantage is their scaling in relation to real life, that metric doesn't have (I use both btw.) this is the best way to explain.
car tyre 30psi = 2.07bar
mountbike is 50 psi = 3.45bar
racing bike 120psi = 8.27 bar
the point being its easy to compare numbers on a scale of say 1 to 100 when the units fit the task. Metric units for things like trye pressures are useless, either in bar or N/m^2.
If I went to measure my car tyre pressure and found it was 1.93 bar , I really wouldn't know if that was about right or too flat becuase the difference in the two numbers is minimal. However if it was 25 psi I could easily see it was 5 out and what fraction that was of what it should be.
I grew up using entirely metric measures yet now always use feet and inches for measuring 90% things because they fit the day to day sizes of things more sensibly. Unless you have used both systems you perhaps cannot understand this though [ I tried explaining it to my gf once who only ever used metric and she couldn't 'get it'.]
- Helmi
- Moderator & Translator (German)
- Offline
Re: [REL] DP_Monitor_wnt5_x86-32_aug16.7z.7z
chud wrote:
tbh, if the full YYYY-MM-DD was used with hyphens, it would probably be clearer it related to a date at least..]
Yeah, probabaly.
I kept the periods because of the official packs solely.
...and although bit is compleltey offtopic,
Heh, I do feel we wouldn't be so bad off with an off-topic subforum.
While there certainly isn't too much need for it, it wouldn't hurt either, I guess.
Also, there aren't that many folks around which could making moderating such a forum hard work (I know what I'm talking about with moderating one of these at around 15,000 members...).
May have a chat with Bâshrat the Sneaky about it when the time is right (new site maybe).
Imperial measures advantage is their scaling in relation to real life, that metric doesn't have (I use both btw.) this is the best way to explain.
car tyre 30psi = 2.07bar
mountbike is 50 psi = 3.45bar
racing bike 120psi = 8.27 bar
the point being its easy to compare numbers on a scale of say 1 to 100 when the units fit the task. Metric units for things like trye pressures are useless, either in bar or N/m^2
I have to disagree with that.
The scaling is exactly the same, simply because 1 PSI ^= 0,069 bar.
This relation is absolutely linear with only one conversion factor.
If you take a closer look, 120 PSI is four times 30 PSI, while 8.27 bar is also four times 2.07 bar.
It may just not "stick out" that much because every second grader could tell you four times three is 12. And multiplying that by ten isn't magic, either.
HOWEVER, multiplying two by four and getting eight ain't so hard, either, same for seven times four equalling 27...
The only thing that's different is the period, but if you multiply by 100, it's gone, too.
Also, you're "cheating" a little.
You make the PSI values look integer while bar is "floating point".
This is merely because the company for the tyre is US-based and they used a value that is an integer to make it easier for the customer.
Guess what, over here, car tyres are supposed to be a straight 2 bar (unless you carry extra load, then it's 2.3 bar, at least for my car).
It doesn't really matter if there's some 10% more or less, most gauges probabaly aren't as accurate anyway (plus, temperature and current car load mean different pressure, too!).
What you did prove, though, is that the system you are used to is the easier one - there's no denying in that for sure!
If I went to measure my car tyre pressure and found it was 1.93 bar , I really wouldn't know if that was about right or too flat becuase the difference in the two numbers is minimal. However if it was 25 psi I could easily see it was 5 out and what fraction that was of what it should be.
See, I know my tyres have to be 2 bar, that is easy enough for me to remember.
(and should I forget it, the values are on the inside of the filler cap ).
Using a barometre to measure the tyre pressure, I get two scales (on the one I'm using):
One for bar and one for PSI.
While the difference from 2 bar to 1.93 bar may seem minimal, on the barometre, it is the same "distance" for the needle as it was from 25 PSI to 20 PSI. Hence, it does not require a better eye or a more precise measuring instrument. It's the same, just different figures (and colours for the scaling ).
I grew up using entirely metric measures yet now always use feet and inches for measuring 90% things because they fit the day to day sizes of things more sensibly.
That certainly depends, once again.
Remember that famous FMJ quote of "Four inches, Pvt. Pyle, four inches!" (for the distance of his weapon to his chest)?
Well, that would be a good 10cm in the metric system.
Maybe he would have less troubles remembering that?
Also, when people guesstimate distances, they never are accurate.
You use whatever is closest to an integer figure of your measurement system.
If I was to give the distance from my home to the train station, I would probabaly say about 1 km.
In reality, it's more like 1.2 km.
Now, you'd probabaly call that almost a mile.
Neither comes really close, but it's not important to be more precise in these things.
Of course, it's easier to say two feet instead of 0.6 m; you'd make that 0.5 m more likely.
If you want precission, you'd say it in mm anyway, and that is a lot more precise than inches
Unless you have used both systems you perhaps cannot understand this though
Well, probabaly, but I wager to guess that I know more about the Imperial System than the average German or continental European.
Also, I am somewhat interested in "ancient" measurement systems (Inch and feet were both known in Germany for a very long time through the Middle Ages up to the 19th centruy when Napoléon made several reforms).
In fact, pound is still being used every day, although, over here it is an exact 500 g or 0.5 kg so it's pretty easy to do that conversion).
As I said before, it really comes down to what you are used to and what is commonly used in your environment (funnily, I strangely had a harder time readopting to the right-lane system after having spend some time in the UK than I had adopting to the left-lane one... ).
As a final note, the one perfect reason to use YYYY-MM-DD is that whenever you use MM-DD or DD-MM on the internet I spend at least half a minute trying to find out which one is meant if both figures are >= 12.
Very annoying!
As there is no YYYY-DD-MM, this system simply avoids any confusion whatsoever (that is to mean there's only one way to interpret this, it may still confuse you if you do not know the scheme, of course).