Slashdot Mirror

...check out the main link, above, for the full list of 68 or so machines, more pics, and a QTVR of the whole lot.

blakespot

...check out the main link, above, for the full list of 68 or so machines, more pics, and a QTVR of the whole lot.

blakespot

...check out the main link, above, for the full list of 68 or so machines, more pics, and a QTVR of the whole lot.

blakespot

Your post here got me to thinking. I had wanted and Indy back in the early 90's when I was working with Indigo's at a NASA contractor in Hampton, VA. Did not have the $$ tho. Now seems a good time!

After doing some digging, several things became clear:

- For a little more $$ than you'd need to spend for a used Indy (maybe $150 more on eBay), you can get a used O2 or Octane which are both much more powerful and viable today.

- The Octane is notably more powerful than the O2, but the market is flooded with them so the Octane is oddly cheaper than the O2. It's also much louder and larger than the O2--less of a "personal workstation" (see O2 and Octane photo here -- O2 on left)

So I have just grabbed an O2 with:
- R10000 CPU @ 175MHz, 1MB L2 cache
- 256MB RAM (unified memory architecture)
- 4GB HD
- A/V module (audio & video in & out)
- O2 cam
- keyboard / mouse ...for $400.

So I shall add to the list my first IRIX machine. Hope my OS X box does not get jealous...

blakespot

Interesting. An INDY? Any pics / specs?

You've got me considering doing the same again--every year or so I think of grabbing an old SGI. I used to lust after the INDY for home in the early 90's.

Would add it to the collection.

blakespot

blakespot

blakespot

blakespot

blakespot

blakespot

blakespot

...and here's a QT VR of my computer room (not clutered) as it was back in 1/2001 (that G3's been turned into a dual G4 since...and some other changes to the room).

...and for what it's worth here's the list of machines I've owned with pics. Have a ball.

blakespot

...and here's a QT VR of my computer room (not clutered) as it was back in 1/2001 (that G3's been turned into a dual G4 since...and some other changes to the room).

...and for what it's worth here's the list of machines I've owned with pics. Have a ball.

blakespot

...and here's a QT VR of my computer room (not clutered) as it was back in 1/2001 (that G3's been turned into a dual G4 since...and some other changes to the room).

...and for what it's worth here's the list of machines I've owned with pics. Have a ball.

blakespot

blakespot

blakespot

blakespot

Have a look at my NeXTstation Turbo Color.

68040 @ 33MHz, 128MB RAM, 2GB HD, 21" color screen

Fast, fast, fast -- no lie.

blakespot

Windows CE is perhaps the worst PDA OS ever. It still tries to put a desktop OS on a PDA. The Newton never did this--it was designed from the ground up as something that is not a traditional computer. Palm also took the wise path of not following the desktop OS model.

And how about designing a PDA OS that allows applications to execute in place, where they reside in memory? Why build a PDA OS that does not support this (as Windows CE does not)? It causes a need to double your resources. Palm and NewtonOS devices all had applications execute in place.

I have owned a Newton MP2100, an eMate 300, and currently have an MP130. The Rosetta print recognition engine is still superior to the latest that ParaGraph has released for WindowsCE. If only Apple had come out with a smaller form-factor Newton (and not killed the line alltogether).

True, WinCE is quite popular and getting moreso compared to Palm, but this is due to people being wooed by the faster, more colorful units. They are, unfortunatley, also getting a sad OS for PDA use. I have hopes that when Palm switches to the StrongARM in the next year, that they will regain some footing.

And by the way, I've had some experience in these areas...

Blake's Nino Info Page -- anyone recall?

Me in the NY Times discussing PDAs

My resume showing contract work with Philips (for their Nino site)

blakespot

Windows CE is perhaps the worst PDA OS ever. It still tries to put a desktop OS on a PDA. The Newton never did this--it was designed from the ground up as something that is not a traditional computer. Palm also took the wise path of not following the desktop OS model.

And how about designing a PDA OS that allows applications to execute in place, where they reside in memory? Why build a PDA OS that does not support this (as Windows CE does not)? It causes a need to double your resources. Palm and NewtonOS devices all had applications execute in place.

I have owned a Newton MP2100, an eMate 300, and currently have an MP130. The Rosetta print recognition engine is still superior to the latest that ParaGraph has released for WindowsCE. If only Apple had come out with a smaller form-factor Newton (and not killed the line alltogether).

True, WinCE is quite popular and getting moreso compared to Palm, but this is due to people being wooed by the faster, more colorful units. They are, unfortunatley, also getting a sad OS for PDA use. I have hopes that when Palm switches to the StrongARM in the next year, that they will regain some footing.

And by the way, I've had some experience in these areas...

Blake's Nino Info Page -- anyone recall?

Me in the NY Times discussing PDAs

My resume showing contract work with Philips (for their Nino site)

blakespot

Windows CE is perhaps the worst PDA OS ever. It still tries to put a desktop OS on a PDA. The Newton never did this--it was designed from the ground up as something that is not a traditional computer. Palm also took the wise path of not following the desktop OS model.

And how about designing a PDA OS that allows applications to execute in place, where they reside in memory? Why build a PDA OS that does not support this (as Windows CE does not)? It causes a need to double your resources. Palm and NewtonOS devices all had applications execute in place.

I have owned a Newton MP2100, an eMate 300, and currently have an MP130. The Rosetta print recognition engine is still superior to the latest that ParaGraph has released for WindowsCE. If only Apple had come out with a smaller form-factor Newton (and not killed the line alltogether).

True, WinCE is quite popular and getting moreso compared to Palm, but this is due to people being wooed by the faster, more colorful units. They are, unfortunatley, also getting a sad OS for PDA use. I have hopes that when Palm switches to the StrongARM in the next year, that they will regain some footing.

And by the way, I've had some experience in these areas...

Blake's Nino Info Page -- anyone recall?

Me in the NY Times discussing PDAs

My resume showing contract work with Philips (for their Nino site)

blakespot

If running OSX on a wintel box suddenly became very easy (and ignoring licence issues), would Linux on the desktop suddenly look rather doomed?

As opposed to the "future's so bright I gotta wear shades" prospect that desktop Linux is sporting now???

I was an Amiga user, and finally went PC when I realized I could use NeXSTEP on PC boxes, and I bought a high end 486 (at the time) to run it. Spent $4,500 on the machine. After 9 months I had to wipe NeXTSTEP and install Windows 3.1 as I needed the desktop apps. It was a sad day. I tried 4-5x over the next few years to run Linux exclusively (desktop use), but was forced to go back to Windows 95 becuase I simply needed the desktop apps Windows offered. I finally saw Jobs return to Apple and saw the plan for NeXTSTEP to merge with some MacOS pieces and become OS X. I bought a Mac, a Blue-and-White G3 400, in Jan '99. I jumped the gun a bit becuase OS X did not really get to rolling until March/April '01. But I had fun with the hardware while I waited (and noted OS 9's decent speed but terrible stability, etc.) Summer '01 I went out and purchased a dual processor G4 800 upon which to run OS X like a beast. I have never been happier with an OS.

Do you know how much $$ (hardware, purchase of NeXTSTEP) and time (installing Linux 5x over the years, only to uninstall and reinstall Windows) I spent trying to get a UNIX solution on the desktop that worked? It became a hobby in and of itself, the quest for desktop UNIX. But the apps always kept me away.

As I type this, I sit downstairs, away from my "machine room," using my new iBook 700. I am typing this on IE 5 (which now uses Apple's Quartz text smoothing for so-nice aa fonts) connected to the net via my AirPort base station (WiFi), I have Silverado on DVD playing in a small window, and have Photoshop 7 running in the background because I've been doing some color correction on some digicam images I've imported, via USB, into iPhoto, Apple's free photo management package. I could not be doing these things on the Linux platform. Nor any other UNIX platform. OS X has brought together the best desktop interface I have encountered, the most stable UNIX variant that I have encountered, mainstream application support that leaves the user wanting of nothing, and a company behind it all that has a clear and compelling vision and direction.

So...would Linux be doomed on the desktop if OS X became available for the PC? Well, you'll have to make that call. It won't happen becuase Apple's main source of revenue is hardware sales and also they currently are able to hold up OS X to the crowds with the stability and ease that only comes from a company controlling both the hardware and the software. Having run NeXTSTEP both on that old PC back in the day (where motherboards / chipsets / CPU's come from one of many vendors) and on my NeXT machine, I can tell you that such dead solid stability comes only from having just that kind of control over both ends of the stick. But OS X is available for Macs--and looking at what one walks away with when they take the plunge into the current world that Apple has built, it seems that the appeal of "free" Linux and the ability to run on super-economy hardware becomes somewhat less mighty....

Oh....and did I need a new laptop when I already have a DP G4 800 in-house? No. I simply am so enamored of OS X that I wanted to be able to take it with me whenever I like. I've had a few engrossing and satisfying relationships with OS's in the past (AmigaDOS in the 80's, etc.) but nothing like this. This is just...right.

blakespot

If running OSX on a wintel box suddenly became very easy (and ignoring licence issues), would Linux on the desktop suddenly look rather doomed?

As opposed to the "future's so bright I gotta wear shades" prospect that desktop Linux is sporting now???

I was an Amiga user, and finally went PC when I realized I could use NeXSTEP on PC boxes, and I bought a high end 486 (at the time) to run it. Spent $4,500 on the machine. After 9 months I had to wipe NeXTSTEP and install Windows 3.1 as I needed the desktop apps. It was a sad day. I tried 4-5x over the next few years to run Linux exclusively (desktop use), but was forced to go back to Windows 95 becuase I simply needed the desktop apps Windows offered. I finally saw Jobs return to Apple and saw the plan for NeXTSTEP to merge with some MacOS pieces and become OS X. I bought a Mac, a Blue-and-White G3 400, in Jan '99. I jumped the gun a bit becuase OS X did not really get to rolling until March/April '01. But I had fun with the hardware while I waited (and noted OS 9's decent speed but terrible stability, etc.) Summer '01 I went out and purchased a dual processor G4 800 upon which to run OS X like a beast. I have never been happier with an OS.

Do you know how much $$ (hardware, purchase of NeXTSTEP) and time (installing Linux 5x over the years, only to uninstall and reinstall Windows) I spent trying to get a UNIX solution on the desktop that worked? It became a hobby in and of itself, the quest for desktop UNIX. But the apps always kept me away.

As I type this, I sit downstairs, away from my "machine room," using my new iBook 700. I am typing this on IE 5 (which now uses Apple's Quartz text smoothing for so-nice aa fonts) connected to the net via my AirPort base station (WiFi), I have Silverado on DVD playing in a small window, and have Photoshop 7 running in the background because I've been doing some color correction on some digicam images I've imported, via USB, into iPhoto, Apple's free photo management package. I could not be doing these things on the Linux platform. Nor any other UNIX platform. OS X has brought together the best desktop interface I have encountered, the most stable UNIX variant that I have encountered, mainstream application support that leaves the user wanting of nothing, and a company behind it all that has a clear and compelling vision and direction.

So...would Linux be doomed on the desktop if OS X became available for the PC? Well, you'll have to make that call. It won't happen becuase Apple's main source of revenue is hardware sales and also they currently are able to hold up OS X to the crowds with the stability and ease that only comes from a company controlling both the hardware and the software. Having run NeXTSTEP both on that old PC back in the day (where motherboards / chipsets / CPU's come from one of many vendors) and on my NeXT machine, I can tell you that such dead solid stability comes only from having just that kind of control over both ends of the stick. But OS X is available for Macs--and looking at what one walks away with when they take the plunge into the current world that Apple has built, it seems that the appeal of "free" Linux and the ability to run on super-economy hardware becomes somewhat less mighty....

Oh....and did I need a new laptop when I already have a DP G4 800 in-house? No. I simply am so enamored of OS X that I wanted to be able to take it with me whenever I like. I've had a few engrossing and satisfying relationships with OS's in the past (AmigaDOS in the 80's, etc.) but nothing like this. This is just...right.

blakespot

If running OSX on a wintel box suddenly became very easy (and ignoring licence issues), would Linux on the desktop suddenly look rather doomed?

As opposed to the "future's so bright I gotta wear shades" prospect that desktop Linux is sporting now???

I was an Amiga user, and finally went PC when I realized I could use NeXSTEP on PC boxes, and I bought a high end 486 (at the time) to run it. Spent $4,500 on the machine. After 9 months I had to wipe NeXTSTEP and install Windows 3.1 as I needed the desktop apps. It was a sad day. I tried 4-5x over the next few years to run Linux exclusively (desktop use), but was forced to go back to Windows 95 becuase I simply needed the desktop apps Windows offered. I finally saw Jobs return to Apple and saw the plan for NeXTSTEP to merge with some MacOS pieces and become OS X. I bought a Mac, a Blue-and-White G3 400, in Jan '99. I jumped the gun a bit becuase OS X did not really get to rolling until March/April '01. But I had fun with the hardware while I waited (and noted OS 9's decent speed but terrible stability, etc.) Summer '01 I went out and purchased a dual processor G4 800 upon which to run OS X like a beast. I have never been happier with an OS.

Do you know how much $$ (hardware, purchase of NeXTSTEP) and time (installing Linux 5x over the years, only to uninstall and reinstall Windows) I spent trying to get a UNIX solution on the desktop that worked? It became a hobby in and of itself, the quest for desktop UNIX. But the apps always kept me away.

As I type this, I sit downstairs, away from my "machine room," using my new iBook 700. I am typing this on IE 5 (which now uses Apple's Quartz text smoothing for so-nice aa fonts) connected to the net via my AirPort base station (WiFi), I have Silverado on DVD playing in a small window, and have Photoshop 7 running in the background because I've been doing some color correction on some digicam images I've imported, via USB, into iPhoto, Apple's free photo management package. I could not be doing these things on the Linux platform. Nor any other UNIX platform. OS X has brought together the best desktop interface I have encountered, the most stable UNIX variant that I have encountered, mainstream application support that leaves the user wanting of nothing, and a company behind it all that has a clear and compelling vision and direction.

So...would Linux be doomed on the desktop if OS X became available for the PC? Well, you'll have to make that call. It won't happen becuase Apple's main source of revenue is hardware sales and also they currently are able to hold up OS X to the crowds with the stability and ease that only comes from a company controlling both the hardware and the software. Having run NeXTSTEP both on that old PC back in the day (where motherboards / chipsets / CPU's come from one of many vendors) and on my NeXT machine, I can tell you that such dead solid stability comes only from having just that kind of control over both ends of the stick. But OS X is available for Macs--and looking at what one walks away with when they take the plunge into the current world that Apple has built, it seems that the appeal of "free" Linux and the ability to run on super-economy hardware becomes somewhat less mighty....

Oh....and did I need a new laptop when I already have a DP G4 800 in-house? No. I simply am so enamored of OS X that I wanted to be able to take it with me whenever I like. I've had a few engrossing and satisfying relationships with OS's in the past (AmigaDOS in the 80's, etc.) but nothing like this. This is just...right.

blakespot

The father of OS X.

My black beauty

blakespot

This desk was built by Blake who runs Blakespot (used to run a Nino fan page until Philips killed it(the Nino that is...)). He built his own and I have been contemplating doing the same. Sauder and folks that make the home desks don't really make them good enough for people who actually need to work at them. Mine has stuff littered all over it because my wife uses it too. I don't have enough space for everything. It's also too deap. I would like to have one go floor to ceiling (well, almost) and have it L shaped with a long L shaped section that goes below my Window with a cut out in it for my 35 in TV. Why? I eventually will have a ATI or some other card with TV out and I feel whiy have two DVD players in the same room when I have one in my computer? Also this design would allow my TV to be seen without having to look through a person using the computer. Anyway, check out Blake's design at Blakespot.