Slashdot Mirror

• Microsoft never ported MS Office to Alpha.

Who cares? One of the major reasons to use alpha is to divorce yourself from the Microsoft/Intel stranglehold. Note that Applixware Office IS available on the alpha.

• On Linux, there is a severe paucity of "commercial" applications for Alpha, and some of the critical applications for "desktop" use are not available. Notably, Netscape is not readily available. (I know that the Digital UNIX version can be hacked into submission, but it is not an easy rpm -i netscape.rpm away...)

Oh, yes it is as easy as 'rpm -i netscape.rpm'. Check out Compaq's software list and you will see, right there before your very eyes, an rpm of netscape 4.7. It includes the Tru64 libraries necessary to run the Tru64 version. On the same page you will find mozilla.

• Hardware compatibility lists are similarly "brittle." I've tried running the Diamond Rio package, rio on my Alpha box; it gets quite confused, probably due to some 32-bit-ism in the "driver." More critical is the paucity of graphics cards supported by XFree86 on Alpha. It is probably similar for other 64 bit platforms; you're restricted to whatever there are "open" drivers for, and there are some cards (Cirrus comes to mind) that have architectures that are distinctly unfriendly to 64 bit operations.

I also have a Diamond Rio, on my alpha, with USB (just to refute everyone that says Linux doesn't support USB), and I'm quite happy with it. I had to change ONE LINE that was getting 64/32 bits confused. I submitted the patch to the maintainers, and it's now in the main rio tools. You've gotta dig a little deeper sometimes. If you want nice prepackaged, "bug-free" software, go back to Microsoft. I couldn't have done that with a "commercial" app. Long live open source. Yes, 95% of linux users use Intel. Yes, the existance of alpha on linux doen't make everyone write 64-bit clean code. This is the only source of frailty I have found of on the alpha.

IA-64 will have the same 64-bit problems that the alpha is having now. sizeof(long int) != sizeof(int) is just about the only problem. I will say that I can compile 99% of the software I find for linux on the net without modification. Often I compile it with Compaq's ccc to get a faster binary (I was tickled to find lame encoding my mp3's at 4x realtime at 160kbps with ccc, where before it was roughly 0.5 realtime with bladeenc and gcc).

As you say, people that "just want it to work" will not buy an alpha. It is marked as a massive horsepower machine. Companies buy them to run big databases, and academia buys them to model weather patterns and nuclear blasts. They also pay through the nose for Compaq to maintain them. They have no need of running Office. For mere mortals who want to play with some horsepower you can buy an older one, and be very happy with it. But don't expect your grandmother to be able to use it. If you want everything preinstalled and done for you, buy an iMac or a Windoze machine. That said, I do wish Compaq would market the alpha to the masses. I think it would do well. It runs linux like a charm.

--Bob

• Microsoft never ported MS Office to Alpha.

Who cares? One of the major reasons to use alpha is to divorce yourself from the Microsoft/Intel stranglehold. Note that Applixware Office IS available on the alpha.

• On Linux, there is a severe paucity of "commercial" applications for Alpha, and some of the critical applications for "desktop" use are not available. Notably, Netscape is not readily available. (I know that the Digital UNIX version can be hacked into submission, but it is not an easy rpm -i netscape.rpm away...)

Oh, yes it is as easy as 'rpm -i netscape.rpm'. Check out Compaq's software list and you will see, right there before your very eyes, an rpm of netscape 4.7. It includes the Tru64 libraries necessary to run the Tru64 version. On the same page you will find mozilla.

• Hardware compatibility lists are similarly "brittle." I've tried running the Diamond Rio package, rio on my Alpha box; it gets quite confused, probably due to some 32-bit-ism in the "driver." More critical is the paucity of graphics cards supported by XFree86 on Alpha. It is probably similar for other 64 bit platforms; you're restricted to whatever there are "open" drivers for, and there are some cards (Cirrus comes to mind) that have architectures that are distinctly unfriendly to 64 bit operations.

I also have a Diamond Rio, on my alpha, with USB (just to refute everyone that says Linux doesn't support USB), and I'm quite happy with it. I had to change ONE LINE that was getting 64/32 bits confused. I submitted the patch to the maintainers, and it's now in the main rio tools. You've gotta dig a little deeper sometimes. If you want nice prepackaged, "bug-free" software, go back to Microsoft. I couldn't have done that with a "commercial" app. Long live open source. Yes, 95% of linux users use Intel. Yes, the existance of alpha on linux doen't make everyone write 64-bit clean code. This is the only source of frailty I have found of on the alpha.

IA-64 will have the same 64-bit problems that the alpha is having now. sizeof(long int) != sizeof(int) is just about the only problem. I will say that I can compile 99% of the software I find for linux on the net without modification. Often I compile it with Compaq's ccc to get a faster binary (I was tickled to find lame encoding my mp3's at 4x realtime at 160kbps with ccc, where before it was roughly 0.5 realtime with bladeenc and gcc).

As you say, people that "just want it to work" will not buy an alpha. It is marked as a massive horsepower machine. Companies buy them to run big databases, and academia buys them to model weather patterns and nuclear blasts. They also pay through the nose for Compaq to maintain them. They have no need of running Office. For mere mortals who want to play with some horsepower you can buy an older one, and be very happy with it. But don't expect your grandmother to be able to use it. If you want everything preinstalled and done for you, buy an iMac or a Windoze machine. That said, I do wish Compaq would market the alpha to the masses. I think it would do well. It runs linux like a charm.

--Bob

VMS: Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

VMS isn't dead, despite Gartner and the rest proselytizing that fate for the last 10 years. They've done the same thing to unix, until very recently.

VMS still has a large user base, but Compaq has seen fit to cut off their noses, keep prices through the stratosphere, and aim for the high end only, all the while selling off bits and pieces of technology to M$ as part of the 'Affinity' program. This was of course to woo NT development over to Alpha, but M$ as usual has found a way to make this useless to their 'partner' (delaying 64-bit NT on Alpha until Merced ships with 64-bit NT, denying any Alpha leadtime). Fortunately, Compaq has seen some of the light and pulled the plug, pulled their Digits off NT filesystem/clustering development, etc.

There are a number of organizations that will support VMS, though I bet you're more after commercial application support. There are still quite a few Apps available (even WordPerfect 7) but the market has declined into a lot of vertical applications (science, education, research, telecommunications, banking, utilities). Some of this is due to development cannibalization to port to NT, most of it is due to DEC and now Compaq treating VMS like it is a dirty word for the past 5 or 6 years.

Compaq is still a PC box pusher. They don't understand that they have an OS with incredible reliability (uptimes in the range of 13-15 years have been reported) and clustering that nothing else can touch (shared everything, over multiple transports, with automatic load balancing, cluster aliases, the ability to cluster machines 100's of miles apart, etc...)

There is still a community, despite the Q's attempts to munge DECUS into a new marketing vehicle for their desktop PC's (I get offers as a member of DECUS for steep discounts on PC's with NT installed...while what I want are steep discounts on Alpha boxes with VMS or Linux). Check out the VMSNET newsgroups or COMP.OS.VMS. Very active. DECUS has managed to get Compaq to issue a 'hobbyist' VMS license and a selection of layered products. Some commercial VMS vendors are participating to offer their products under the same license. Check out Montagar Software which distributes hobbyist licenses. You have to join DECUS (free).

The 'Open' in OpenVMS was a marketroid move when VMS fully supported POSIX (6.0?). IIRC VMS had full POSIX support before any commercial Unix did. It had nothing at all to do with the move to Alpha. It was just buzzword compliance when everything deployed had to be an 'open system'. There is no difference between VMS and OpenVMS, save for the POSIX layer. That has been removed in recent versions, as the standard VMS runtime libraries now support the POSIX API's as well.

Too bad it was before your time. When I was in college, VMS was *it*. VMS is younger than Unix, mind you, but they gave steep hardware and software discounts to colleges and phenomenal support. Now, so many useful things have been dropped from the CSLG (Campus Software License Agreement) that we plan on dropping the CSLG here next year. It is no longer worth it. Compaq's high-end blinders have lead them to sell off the layered products that made managing VMS clusters so sweet (PolyCenter Scheduler, Console Manager, Performance Analyzer, etc.) Most of these were sold to Computer Associates and now run on (and require) NT. Compaq's direction is loudly ranted about on COMP.OS.VMS.

Regardless, you could learn a few things from VMS. Linux could learn a lot, structurely. VMS was _designed_ (when Olson, the engineer, was CEO) and does so many things right... Even though Compaq has butchered the site, try the OpenVMS Website to learn more. The Documentation and FAQ links are there.

--Rubinstien

But according to the Official Compaq Spec the 21264b can toot along at 940 MHz if you can cool the heat sink enough to keep the Operating Temperature at Heat Sink Center down to 83.8C.

So just a little push and you should have GHz 64-bit processors, scads of them!

I wanna know where i can get this "Linux-Live Free Or Die" license plate.

Ham on rye, hold the mayo please.

The big announcement (what this article about) is the GS series, which is separate and totally different from the DS series (of which the DS10L is a member).

Don't get me wrong, the DS machines are great, they just don't have the new system architecture that makes the GS series so awesome (which is what all the hubub is about).

The big announcement (what this article about) is the GS series, which is separate and totally different from the DS series (of which the DS10L is a member).

Don't get me wrong, the DS machines are great, they just don't have the new system architecture that makes the GS series so awesome (which is what all the hubub is about).

The big announcement (what this article about) is the GS series, which is separate and totally different from the DS series (of which the DS10L is a member).

Don't get me wrong, the DS machines are great, they just don't have the new system architecture that makes the GS series so awesome (which is what all the hubub is about).

I saw a few of these in a Compaq SAN interoperability lab a few weeks ago. I assume they are ready now with Tru64 Unix...not sure about getting them preinstalled with linux though.

The Compaq product info page is here. The 64bit OS plus the high internal bandwith means it should be a very great clustering unit, especially as you can now fit 40 of them into a single rack.

Here are the specs:

• 1U Form factor for rackmount version
• 466 MHz Alpha 21264 64-bit processor
• Desktop or rack-mount, with up to 40 systems in a rack
• Up to 1 GB of memory
• Highest memory bandwidth in its class
• High speed I/O with a 64-bit PCI slot
• Dual 10/100 Ethernet ports onboard
• Supports Tru64 UNIX, OpenVMS, and Linux

Anybody know when they go on the market?

I was really psyched until I read the fine print. I happen to work for one of the companies that originally worked on Motif (or rather the company that bought them). We get Motif 1.2 for free, but have to pay licensing fees for Motif 2.

I use Motif for a bunch of internally developed and used tools. However, since the work I do is only used internally, the company is unwilling to shell out license fess for us to get a recent version. Our customers can buy Motif 2, but we don't get it on the inside. Thus we are trapped with the bugs and primitive feature set of Motif 1.2.

When I saw this headline, I though "At last! Now I can drag our interfaces into the early '90s!" But no, not on our OS of choice. That really frosts me. Thanks for nothing, [so-called but not really] Open Group!

I was really psyched until I read the fine print. I happen to work for one of the companies that originally worked on Motif (or rather the company that bought them). We get Motif 1.2 for free, but have to pay licensing fees for Motif 2.

I use Motif for a bunch of internally developed and used tools. However, since the work I do is only used internally, the company is unwilling to shell out license fess for us to get a recent version. Our customers can buy Motif 2, but we don't get it on the inside. Thus we are trapped with the bugs and primitive feature set of Motif 1.2.

When I saw this headline, I though "At last! Now I can drag our interfaces into the early '90s!" But no, not on our OS of choice. That really frosts me. Thanks for nothing, [so-called but not really] Open Group!

[At the risk of letting the cat out of the bag too early...]

Anybody who finds this interesting might want to take a look at Vesta. It's an advanced revision control/build system developed at Compaq's Systems Research Center (the people who brought you the Personal Jukebox and co-developed the Itsy). I've been using it for over a year, and going back to make/CVS style development now feels downright primitive. Among some of Vesta's cooler features:

• Automatic language-independent perfect dependency checking. (You never even have to even think about dependencies, and it really can't get them wrong.)
• Guaranteed build repeatability. (Dependencies on everything, including compiler and library versions, are captured. If you've ever done a build in the past, you'll be able to repeat it and get an equivalent result.)
• Build incrementality that works site wide. (If anyone using the same server has compiled a file, nobody else needs to wait for it to be compiled, because the result is already available. This also cuts down on total disk usage, because there aren't redundant copies of object files lying around.)

It's not available today, but there's a lot of talk about releasing it.

[At the risk of letting the cat out of the bag too early...]

Anybody who finds this interesting might want to take a look at Vesta. It's an advanced revision control/build system developed at Compaq's Systems Research Center (the people who brought you the Personal Jukebox and co-developed the Itsy). I've been using it for over a year, and going back to make/CVS style development now feels downright primitive. Among some of Vesta's cooler features:

• Automatic language-independent perfect dependency checking. (You never even have to even think about dependencies, and it really can't get them wrong.)
• Guaranteed build repeatability. (Dependencies on everything, including compiler and library versions, are captured. If you've ever done a build in the past, you'll be able to repeat it and get an equivalent result.)
• Build incrementality that works site wide. (If anyone using the same server has compiled a file, nobody else needs to wait for it to be compiled, because the result is already available. This also cuts down on total disk usage, because there aren't redundant copies of object files lying around.)

It's not available today, but there's a lot of talk about releasing it.

[At the risk of letting the cat out of the bag too early...]

Anybody who finds this interesting might want to take a look at Vesta. It's an advanced revision control/build system developed at Compaq's Systems Research Center (the people who brought you the Personal Jukebox and co-developed the Itsy). I've been using it for over a year, and going back to make/CVS style development now feels downright primitive. Among some of Vesta's cooler features:

• Automatic language-independent perfect dependency checking. (You never even have to even think about dependencies, and it really can't get them wrong.)
• Guaranteed build repeatability. (Dependencies on everything, including compiler and library versions, are captured. If you've ever done a build in the past, you'll be able to repeat it and get an equivalent result.)
• Build incrementality that works site wide. (If anyone using the same server has compiled a file, nobody else needs to wait for it to be compiled, because the result is already available. This also cuts down on total disk usage, because there aren't redundant copies of object files lying around.)

It's not available today, but there's a lot of talk about releasing it.

Realaudio is a defacto standard. You can't argue with that. If you're only going to have one audio file, it'd better be RealAudio. That's the way to reach the broadest audience.

A better question: Why just one file? The Rapidly Changing Face of Computing uses MP3, RealAudio and ToolVox, in addition to the web and email versions.

Finally, MP3 is not a completely open format. If you want to use it, you must license patents. So while it's less proprietary than RealAudio, it's still proprietary.

Unfortunately, despite the claims at the top, this review is far from objective. Rather than trying to give the devices the benefit of the doubt the author makes a thinly veiled effort to re-substantiate age-old Palm rhetoric on the new devices.

Conspicuously absent is a review of the Compaq iPaq that could do the most damage to Palm. Its lighter than all the Palm devices except the V, has longer rechargable battery life, and two USB ports - this in addition to all the advantages that CE 2.11 devices had.

I really loved parts in the review like "if we ignore these buttons over here and these buttons over here Palms have more buttons" and "if we ignore that the Palm has a part of the screen that can't be changed they're pretty much the same size despite the Palm's being low res and smudgy." I guess if you close your eyes to all the good stuff on PocketPC's, Palms do look lovely.

This is wonderful---all the Palm spin in one place. But we're (mostly) Linux people, right? Aren't we immune to software marketing spin? After all, much of the following sounds strangely familiar...

Palm OS(R) handhelds are the standard

Microsoft operating systems are the standard

- Palm OS has more than 75% market share worldwide, and our installed base doubled in the last year.

Microsoft operating systems have 99.44% market share worldwide. Installed base doesn't have room to double.

- Palm OS has more than 5,000 software programs, 10-50 times more than any other handheld platform.

Windows has a (countably) infinite number of software programs.

- Palm OS is supported by the leaders in enterprise software, including Oracle, Siebel, SAP, Lawson, Sun, and Sybase

Don't get us started.

Those are all great arguments against Linux as well.

OK, on to some better ones.

Palm OS handhelds are the leader because they were designed from the ground up for your needs.

- They're designed for information management when you're on the go, not to be a shrunken PC. Key features of a handheld are different from a PC:

- Simple. You can instantly access the information you need.

Microsoft at least is making gestures in this direction in this release.

- Wearable. It's small and light enough that that you can carry it in a pocket or a purse all day, and the batteries last long enough that you can go on a business trip without fear of losing information.

Enh, the Everex Freestyle (no longer sold under that name) was always smaller than a 5000/III, and the Compaq 1500 series is competitive in size. Battery life? No question that some PalmOS devices have much bigger numbers. The Casio E-15 I play with has enough rechargable battery life that I don't worry about it much, just like my Pilot 1000.

- Mobile. You can always update your information through wired or wireless connections, even when you are on the go.

Well, duh. The only way I can read this is as a PR attempt to imply that other platforms don't have this capability. The statement itself is vague enough that an IR or cabled connection to a cellphone would qualify, and even my Newton talked nice to a cellphone.

The palm-sized CE devices out there are pretty weak in wireless communication, which is why they can get away with this implication. I don't know of any consumer-oriented palm-sized CE devices with integrated wireless net. Palm, because they're that market leader they're bragging about, does get the benefit of high quality third-party networking products (because they're the biggest market). There is nothing like the OmniSky around for CE, and it's the one product that makes me want to go drop ~$800 on a Palm V and that modem.

OK, now on to their evaluation questions. I'm going to divide up Palm operations into three notional organizations. Palm-HW builds the Palm-branded hardware like the Palm V. Palm-Opsys implements PalmOS...and also the applications bundled with it, like Address Book. Palm-Desktop builds the PC/Mac software that works with the device.

- How many software programs and hardware options are available? As for any other computing product, the number of software and hardware options determine how much you can do with it. Palm OS has by far the largest selection, with more than 5,000 software programs and hundreds of hardware expansion options.

Again, Linux people have been through this once before....

- Do the people around you use it? Handheld users share information. They use the infrared connection to exchange business cards, information, and even software programs. Make sure you're not stuck on a handheld island.

The answer to compatibility is not standardization on a single product. The righteous answer is open standards for interoperation. See IrDA's specs for a good cut at this; in particular, IrMC is relevant to PDAs. Open standards could cut the tie between Palm-Opsys and Palm-Desktop.

App sharing, well, that's a tougher nut. Blah blah blah tcl blah java blah waba blah blah. Shame about Sun, though.

- How many companies sell it? Which companies support the platform? How many? How innovative are they? Palm licensees and OEMs include many of the most innovative companies in electronics, including leaders like Sony, Nokia, and IBM, and hot new companies like Handspring, Qualcomm, and TRG.

I'm amused by this. Microsoft used to have a big pile of HW vendors, and 3com only had the single Palm-HW vendor. Then a year or two passed...

I haven't been impressed with the diversity and innovation of the manufacturers of devices that license PalmOS. They are just grafting a part or two onto the dragonball bus. In many cases, it's obvious they've licensed much of the Palm-HW design as well (why do all those cases look so similar?) The fanciest integration to date is the Qualcomm pilot-in-a-cellphone, but I don't think it's had much market success.

Some of this lack of innovation is due to limitations in PalmOS. They can't switch processors (64k limits must die) or go to a higher res screen without breaking those thousands of apps they're bragging about. (Yes, they could add LCD to the current silkscreen area, but going to a 240x320 screen will not make pixel-positioned forms very happy.)

- Is it open? Make sure your freedom of choice is protected.

...coming from a proprietary OS vendor (Palm-Opsys), this rings hollow.

Some handhelds restrict your choices by forcing you to buy all of one company's software programs,

Not CE, and I think this is another false argument-by-implication.

limiting you to a single expansion technology,

Even the CE hardware vendors appear to be rebelling against "must have CF". The iPAQ moved CF and PCMCIA support into expansion packs, and there are some MultiMediaCard CE boxes coming.

or not working with the full range of corporate software. [...]

standards, standards, standards. Not in Palm-Opsys's best interest though.

- Are you forced to pay for features you don't want? Everyone wants different things from a handheld. Adding hardware features increases the weight and cost of the system. Bundling extra software costs you money, and uses extra memory which adds even more cost and reduces battery life.

Oh, Palm is going to tout price competitiveness? That's a win for everyone, especially if it eats into those huge per-device profit margins.

More seriously, there is a complicated set of tradeoffs here. Bigger hardware can reduce software development costs, if done right (CE is a poor example, of course). Adding more software to ROM or flash adds just the marginal cost of more storage to the hardware price; it does not suck more RAM or CPU if not used. The additional software bundled then has development costs, but if the software broadens the appeal of the device sufficiently, it may amortize over a greater number of units, and push up those economies of scale.

The real fun begins once you really unbundle the system. Say, an OS like Linux as common ground for HW manufacturers, a couple choices of app framework (gtk, fltk, W, microwindows, plus extensions), a few good PIMs to choose from, all interoperating with a variety of synchronization tools on the desktop. The market could make better decisions in the bundling/feature space if component costs were explicit.

- How simple is it, really? Beware of companies that try to cram an entire PC into your pocket. [...]

- How well do the features work in real life? Sometimes features work better in a demo than they do in real life. A prime example is browsing the Web. [...]

This is the best battering ram against CE that Palm has. Trust me. I own both. :-)

I'm going to elide the feature list because they seem to be going for parity with CE rather than superiority.

Jay

This is wonderful---all the Palm spin in one place. But we're (mostly) Linux people, right? Aren't we immune to software marketing spin? After all, much of the following sounds strangely familiar...

Palm OS(R) handhelds are the standard

Microsoft operating systems are the standard

- Palm OS has more than 75% market share worldwide, and our installed base doubled in the last year.

Microsoft operating systems have 99.44% market share worldwide. Installed base doesn't have room to double.

- Palm OS has more than 5,000 software programs, 10-50 times more than any other handheld platform.

Windows has a (countably) infinite number of software programs.

- Palm OS is supported by the leaders in enterprise software, including Oracle, Siebel, SAP, Lawson, Sun, and Sybase

Don't get us started.

Those are all great arguments against Linux as well.

OK, on to some better ones.

Palm OS handhelds are the leader because they were designed from the ground up for your needs.

- They're designed for information management when you're on the go, not to be a shrunken PC. Key features of a handheld are different from a PC:

- Simple. You can instantly access the information you need.

Microsoft at least is making gestures in this direction in this release.

- Wearable. It's small and light enough that that you can carry it in a pocket or a purse all day, and the batteries last long enough that you can go on a business trip without fear of losing information.

Enh, the Everex Freestyle (no longer sold under that name) was always smaller than a 5000/III, and the Compaq 1500 series is competitive in size. Battery life? No question that some PalmOS devices have much bigger numbers. The Casio E-15 I play with has enough rechargable battery life that I don't worry about it much, just like my Pilot 1000.

- Mobile. You can always update your information through wired or wireless connections, even when you are on the go.

Well, duh. The only way I can read this is as a PR attempt to imply that other platforms don't have this capability. The statement itself is vague enough that an IR or cabled connection to a cellphone would qualify, and even my Newton talked nice to a cellphone.

The palm-sized CE devices out there are pretty weak in wireless communication, which is why they can get away with this implication. I don't know of any consumer-oriented palm-sized CE devices with integrated wireless net. Palm, because they're that market leader they're bragging about, does get the benefit of high quality third-party networking products (because they're the biggest market). There is nothing like the OmniSky around for CE, and it's the one product that makes me want to go drop ~$800 on a Palm V and that modem.

OK, now on to their evaluation questions. I'm going to divide up Palm operations into three notional organizations. Palm-HW builds the Palm-branded hardware like the Palm V. Palm-Opsys implements PalmOS...and also the applications bundled with it, like Address Book. Palm-Desktop builds the PC/Mac software that works with the device.

- How many software programs and hardware options are available? As for any other computing product, the number of software and hardware options determine how much you can do with it. Palm OS has by far the largest selection, with more than 5,000 software programs and hundreds of hardware expansion options.

Again, Linux people have been through this once before....

- Do the people around you use it? Handheld users share information. They use the infrared connection to exchange business cards, information, and even software programs. Make sure you're not stuck on a handheld island.

The answer to compatibility is not standardization on a single product. The righteous answer is open standards for interoperation. See IrDA's specs for a good cut at this; in particular, IrMC is relevant to PDAs. Open standards could cut the tie between Palm-Opsys and Palm-Desktop.

App sharing, well, that's a tougher nut. Blah blah blah tcl blah java blah waba blah blah. Shame about Sun, though.

- How many companies sell it? Which companies support the platform? How many? How innovative are they? Palm licensees and OEMs include many of the most innovative companies in electronics, including leaders like Sony, Nokia, and IBM, and hot new companies like Handspring, Qualcomm, and TRG.

I'm amused by this. Microsoft used to have a big pile of HW vendors, and 3com only had the single Palm-HW vendor. Then a year or two passed...

I haven't been impressed with the diversity and innovation of the manufacturers of devices that license PalmOS. They are just grafting a part or two onto the dragonball bus. In many cases, it's obvious they've licensed much of the Palm-HW design as well (why do all those cases look so similar?) The fanciest integration to date is the Qualcomm pilot-in-a-cellphone, but I don't think it's had much market success.

Some of this lack of innovation is due to limitations in PalmOS. They can't switch processors (64k limits must die) or go to a higher res screen without breaking those thousands of apps they're bragging about. (Yes, they could add LCD to the current silkscreen area, but going to a 240x320 screen will not make pixel-positioned forms very happy.)

- Is it open? Make sure your freedom of choice is protected.

...coming from a proprietary OS vendor (Palm-Opsys), this rings hollow.

Some handhelds restrict your choices by forcing you to buy all of one company's software programs,

Not CE, and I think this is another false argument-by-implication.

limiting you to a single expansion technology,

Even the CE hardware vendors appear to be rebelling against "must have CF". The iPAQ moved CF and PCMCIA support into expansion packs, and there are some MultiMediaCard CE boxes coming.

or not working with the full range of corporate software. [...]

standards, standards, standards. Not in Palm-Opsys's best interest though.

- Are you forced to pay for features you don't want? Everyone wants different things from a handheld. Adding hardware features increases the weight and cost of the system. Bundling extra software costs you money, and uses extra memory which adds even more cost and reduces battery life.

Oh, Palm is going to tout price competitiveness? That's a win for everyone, especially if it eats into those huge per-device profit margins.

More seriously, there is a complicated set of tradeoffs here. Bigger hardware can reduce software development costs, if done right (CE is a poor example, of course). Adding more software to ROM or flash adds just the marginal cost of more storage to the hardware price; it does not suck more RAM or CPU if not used. The additional software bundled then has development costs, but if the software broadens the appeal of the device sufficiently, it may amortize over a greater number of units, and push up those economies of scale.

The real fun begins once you really unbundle the system. Say, an OS like Linux as common ground for HW manufacturers, a couple choices of app framework (gtk, fltk, W, microwindows, plus extensions), a few good PIMs to choose from, all interoperating with a variety of synchronization tools on the desktop. The market could make better decisions in the bundling/feature space if component costs were explicit.

- How simple is it, really? Beware of companies that try to cram an entire PC into your pocket. [...]

- How well do the features work in real life? Sometimes features work better in a demo than they do in real life. A prime example is browsing the Web. [...]

This is the best battering ram against CE that Palm has. Trust me. I own both. :-)

I'm going to elide the feature list because they seem to be going for parity with CE rather than superiority.

Jay

This is wonderful---all the Palm spin in one place. But we're (mostly) Linux people, right? Aren't we immune to software marketing spin? After all, much of the following sounds strangely familiar...

Palm OS(R) handhelds are the standard

Microsoft operating systems are the standard

- Palm OS has more than 75% market share worldwide, and our installed base doubled in the last year.

Microsoft operating systems have 99.44% market share worldwide. Installed base doesn't have room to double.

- Palm OS has more than 5,000 software programs, 10-50 times more than any other handheld platform.

Windows has a (countably) infinite number of software programs.

- Palm OS is supported by the leaders in enterprise software, including Oracle, Siebel, SAP, Lawson, Sun, and Sybase

Don't get us started.

Those are all great arguments against Linux as well.

OK, on to some better ones.

Palm OS handhelds are the leader because they were designed from the ground up for your needs.

- They're designed for information management when you're on the go, not to be a shrunken PC. Key features of a handheld are different from a PC:

- Simple. You can instantly access the information you need.

Microsoft at least is making gestures in this direction in this release.

- Wearable. It's small and light enough that that you can carry it in a pocket or a purse all day, and the batteries last long enough that you can go on a business trip without fear of losing information.

Enh, the Everex Freestyle (no longer sold under that name) was always smaller than a 5000/III, and the Compaq 1500 series is competitive in size. Battery life? No question that some PalmOS devices have much bigger numbers. The Casio E-15 I play with has enough rechargable battery life that I don't worry about it much, just like my Pilot 1000.

- Mobile. You can always update your information through wired or wireless connections, even when you are on the go.

Well, duh. The only way I can read this is as a PR attempt to imply that other platforms don't have this capability. The statement itself is vague enough that an IR or cabled connection to a cellphone would qualify, and even my Newton talked nice to a cellphone.

The palm-sized CE devices out there are pretty weak in wireless communication, which is why they can get away with this implication. I don't know of any consumer-oriented palm-sized CE devices with integrated wireless net. Palm, because they're that market leader they're bragging about, does get the benefit of high quality third-party networking products (because they're the biggest market). There is nothing like the OmniSky around for CE, and it's the one product that makes me want to go drop ~$800 on a Palm V and that modem.

OK, now on to their evaluation questions. I'm going to divide up Palm operations into three notional organizations. Palm-HW builds the Palm-branded hardware like the Palm V. Palm-Opsys implements PalmOS...and also the applications bundled with it, like Address Book. Palm-Desktop builds the PC/Mac software that works with the device.

- How many software programs and hardware options are available? As for any other computing product, the number of software and hardware options determine how much you can do with it. Palm OS has by far the largest selection, with more than 5,000 software programs and hundreds of hardware expansion options.

Again, Linux people have been through this once before....

- Do the people around you use it? Handheld users share information. They use the infrared connection to exchange business cards, information, and even software programs. Make sure you're not stuck on a handheld island.

The answer to compatibility is not standardization on a single product. The righteous answer is open standards for interoperation. See IrDA's specs for a good cut at this; in particular, IrMC is relevant to PDAs. Open standards could cut the tie between Palm-Opsys and Palm-Desktop.

App sharing, well, that's a tougher nut. Blah blah blah tcl blah java blah waba blah blah. Shame about Sun, though.

- How many companies sell it? Which companies support the platform? How many? How innovative are they? Palm licensees and OEMs include many of the most innovative companies in electronics, including leaders like Sony, Nokia, and IBM, and hot new companies like Handspring, Qualcomm, and TRG.

I'm amused by this. Microsoft used to have a big pile of HW vendors, and 3com only had the single Palm-HW vendor. Then a year or two passed...

I haven't been impressed with the diversity and innovation of the manufacturers of devices that license PalmOS. They are just grafting a part or two onto the dragonball bus. In many cases, it's obvious they've licensed much of the Palm-HW design as well (why do all those cases look so similar?) The fanciest integration to date is the Qualcomm pilot-in-a-cellphone, but I don't think it's had much market success.

Some of this lack of innovation is due to limitations in PalmOS. They can't switch processors (64k limits must die) or go to a higher res screen without breaking those thousands of apps they're bragging about. (Yes, they could add LCD to the current silkscreen area, but going to a 240x320 screen will not make pixel-positioned forms very happy.)

- Is it open? Make sure your freedom of choice is protected.

...coming from a proprietary OS vendor (Palm-Opsys), this rings hollow.

Some handhelds restrict your choices by forcing you to buy all of one company's software programs,

Not CE, and I think this is another false argument-by-implication.

limiting you to a single expansion technology,

Even the CE hardware vendors appear to be rebelling against "must have CF". The iPAQ moved CF and PCMCIA support into expansion packs, and there are some MultiMediaCard CE boxes coming.

or not working with the full range of corporate software. [...]

standards, standards, standards. Not in Palm-Opsys's best interest though.

- Are you forced to pay for features you don't want? Everyone wants different things from a handheld. Adding hardware features increases the weight and cost of the system. Bundling extra software costs you money, and uses extra memory which adds even more cost and reduces battery life.

Oh, Palm is going to tout price competitiveness? That's a win for everyone, especially if it eats into those huge per-device profit margins.

More seriously, there is a complicated set of tradeoffs here. Bigger hardware can reduce software development costs, if done right (CE is a poor example, of course). Adding more software to ROM or flash adds just the marginal cost of more storage to the hardware price; it does not suck more RAM or CPU if not used. The additional software bundled then has development costs, but if the software broadens the appeal of the device sufficiently, it may amortize over a greater number of units, and push up those economies of scale.

The real fun begins once you really unbundle the system. Say, an OS like Linux as common ground for HW manufacturers, a couple choices of app framework (gtk, fltk, W, microwindows, plus extensions), a few good PIMs to choose from, all interoperating with a variety of synchronization tools on the desktop. The market could make better decisions in the bundling/feature space if component costs were explicit.

- How simple is it, really? Beware of companies that try to cram an entire PC into your pocket. [...]

- How well do the features work in real life? Sometimes features work better in a demo than they do in real life. A prime example is browsing the Web. [...]

This is the best battering ram against CE that Palm has. Trust me. I own both. :-)

I'm going to elide the feature list because they seem to be going for parity with CE rather than superiority.

Jay

The Casio (product specs) gets about 6 hours of battery life.

The Compaq (product specs) gets about 12 hours (*cough*-bullshit-*cough).

The HP (product specs) gets about 8 hours.

Not even close to 3 months of battery life on my Palm Pro. Oh, yeah and it fulfills all my mobile needs. =8^p

You need the Compact Flash Card Expansion Pack or the PC Card Expansion Pack. Weird, but flexable! It's on the third page of the PDF.

Oh baby! The Compaq iPAQ H3600 has a StrongARM. Can you say, "I can finally have my Itsy?" Oh, I bet you can! I am willing to bet Compaq Research is already running Linux on it. Check the specs PDF here.
Other awesome features: Reflective color LCD screen. Ambient Light sensor. Stereo Headphone jack. USB port.
Seems no Compact Flash slot.

Microsoft unveiled the Pocket PC today. Products being available by its partners include: HP Jornada, Compaq iPaq H3600, Casio Cassiopei a E-105 and Symbol PPT 2700. Microsoft's touting it as being better than Palm. Here's a list of features, significant among them: Microsoft Reader (for reading e-books), Windows Media Player (for playing music), Pocket Streets (a map program), Pocket Internet Explorer, and office productivity tools like Outlook, Word, and Excel.

FWIW though, Japanese make good appliance-type gadgets, and you can count on them to deliver good quality end-user products (witness the game consoles). Only problem is if some terrorists decide to use a Sharp Zaurus in their Missile Guidance System.

Suprised that most people missed this. I just
got one of these as a suprise gift, and already
I really like it. Had just been thinking about
the MP3-portable thing, and here it is.

First off, the thing's got a disk. Upside: 4.6 GB. Yeah, like 4600 megabytes or about 80 hours.
Downside: when's it going to headcrash and take
me out? Oh, and by the way, the LIon battery is
supposed to go 10 hours (the doc explains that
although running the HD is taxing, they actually
get 10 minutes of music loaded to RAM from a 10 second burst, then shut down the drive again - I guess this means they have at least 10 Mbytes of RAM in it for pre-cache).

Secondly, it's expensive (around $600-$700?), but
the price per playtime minutes - something like
$0.15 per min? Who wants to calculate out the
others? From a quick look, it looks like they're
all $3+ per minute for 1+ hour boxes (or, 1% of
the storage for around a quarter the cost).

Third: I have a very no-frills unit actually
produced by "Hy-Tek" and called the
"Compressor Personal Jukebox". There's
also
Personal Jukebox PJB-100", which is the
product name I remembered seeing on /. a while
back. Both are licensed from

Compaq (and Fraunhofer).

Last: the software is OK (not great), but does
support CDDB lookups of the discs you rip, and
I've had no real problems yet (like it killing
files off my HD like I've heard other one do).

Anyway, I see no other large-scale device like
this out there - what's the deal?

Note that there is a new 1U rack version of the DS10, called the DS10L (code-named "Slate"), that is very attractive for highly compute-intensive tasks. There's a picture of a rack full of these in the Linux section of Compaq's web site.

3tech remote explorerNT

PC Anywhere from Compaq

NT Remote Controller

Take a seminar

Or visit your favourite website.

Dope-finder

The "Factoid" from Compaq' Western Research Labs has some similarities in the "what can you do with really cheap minimal messaging? space.
It's been mentioned in Slashdot before.
The main web page is

http://research.compaq.com/wrl/projects/Factoid/

Compaq has st ated that they will begin selling a 1 Gig system before the end of this week as well -- HP will be starting next week. And in v.limited quantities too, I might add.

Compaq offers a test account on several of their systems. Go to http://www.testdrive.compaq.com and register. Digital Unix (eehhh Compaq tru64) is a good test to see how portable a program is, IMHO.

If I remember correctly, this was something that Compaq was doing. You might want to head over to www.compaq.com and see what you can dig up. Good luck...

You also want to support lots of RAM. But the motherboards most places are selling (including Gateway's 1000MHz Athlon system) are limited to either 384M or maybe 768M of memory (the VIA chipset, like on Tyan's S2380, is a good example of a high-end board for the Athlon.

On top of that, there's still no multi-processor (forget that....how about DUAL processor?) motherboard for the Athlon. You can get dual processing MBs for Pentium-III's cheaply, and >2 processor MBs for Xeons, if you want to pay the price.

Just wanted to mention.... of course, even the non-Xeon Pentium-III has relatively few motherboards available that will support over 768M of memory, but you can go to the the Xeon and get MBs with up to 2GB (easily) 4GB (just becoming available from Tyan and others). 1GB is available for regular PIII's from several vendors.

Disclaimer: My system is a Athlon 700MHz. It rocks.

PS: Gee, Compaq: You'd think that when you issue a press release about your new system, you'd actually be selling them, but you're not (at least on your Web site). Gateway is....

You also want to support lots of RAM. But the motherboards most places are selling (including Gateway's 1000MHz Athlon system) are limited to either 384M or maybe 768M of memory (the VIA chipset, like on Tyan's S2380, is a good example of a high-end board for the Athlon.

On top of that, there's still no multi-processor (forget that....how about DUAL processor?) motherboard for the Athlon. You can get dual processing MBs for Pentium-III's cheaply, and >2 processor MBs for Xeons, if you want to pay the price.

Just wanted to mention.... of course, even the non-Xeon Pentium-III has relatively few motherboards available that will support over 768M of memory, but you can go to the the Xeon and get MBs with up to 2GB (easily) 4GB (just becoming available from Tyan and others). 1GB is available for regular PIII's from several vendors.

Disclaimer: My system is a Athlon 700MHz. It rocks.

PS: Gee, Compaq: You'd think that when you issue a press release about your new system, you'd actually be selling them, but you're not (at least on your Web site). Gateway is....

they are very funky things. they are basically a 486 on a card, iirc has the modem as you mentioned, network access and a web server for stats. that & the battery backups on the scsi card cache amazed me for ages when i first saw them.
heres a link about them [the insight boards]

The "display driver resolution" problem can easily be worked around with a bit of hardware enhancement. Compaq's TFT monitors have native pixel resolutions of up to 1280x1024, depending on the model. They also have internal circuitry which can accept signals at a variety of standard resolutions and map them to the native pixel resolution of the monitor.

Although this solution does not exploit the full capabilities of 200ppi screens, it does allow them to be useful until the new drivers and 32Mb video cards arrive.

There was a discussion here a while back about options regarding embedded linux solutions. Several gripes came up, including the lack of a filesystem or drivers for flash memory, support for varying CPU clock speed, and a few other details. Look at this. From Itsy's page,

• Although there are much newer versions of ARM Linux available today, the Itsy port contains several pieces of software not yet available in the newer versions, including the FTL flash file system, power management support, support to dynamically change clock speeds, etc. We expect that these features will eventually be integrated into later versions of Linux, by the Linux community.

Looks like they've gone to the trouble to write a bunch of these for us. Yay! Now anybody want to look into turning these into a 2.3/2.4 kernel mod?

Viewing the source, I see the problem.

This link should work.

I suppose I should blame IE for maximum karma bonus.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

http://crl.rese arch.compaq.com/downloads/register.cgi?download=It sy

Are Alpha's RISC?

Yes, umm, at least as much so as other "RISC" cpu's... the RISC/CISC terminology is actually obsolete.

64-bit?

Yes. Alpha CPUs have always had 64-bit virtual addressing. Physical addressing varies... newer EV67 Alphas can address 44 bits of physical memory.

In what areas (/applications) does an Alpha beat an x86?

The Alpha has superior floating point, higher memory bandwidth, and more registers than an x86. It handles all applications well but really shines on FP. It's excellent at certain large database applications due to the 64-bit address space (you can do things like mmap a 50GB file, if you like).

Note that UltraSPARC has many of the same advantages of x86.

If you're so curious, why not go to www.testdrive.compaq.com and try one for yourself? You'll get a free 30-day trial account, and can test/benchmark your own applications on a 4-CPU Alpha ES40, if you like.

(Note: I have no affiliation whatsoever with Compaq or Alpha Processor.)

I submitted this to Slashdot's Your Rights Online section some weeks ago, but it was rejected. I think the article is pertinent here.

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. According to the December meeting announcement, the next meetings will occur on 11 January, 2000, and 9 February, 2000. It costs $100 to attend.

The attendance roster from the November meeting (PDF file, sorry) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost.

Nevertheless, the CPTWG and the organizations supporting it are blindly moving forward. It may turn out it's impossible to dam the ocean, but they're gearing up to give it one hell of a try. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

"Year 2000 IS NOT a leapyear" was reported as a "bug" in the VMS operating system in 1983! Read the bug response here, it's quite funny!

DVDs provide high quality images, such as motion pictures, digitally formatted on a convenient 5-inch disc that is resistant to wear and damage and allows for many attractive consumer features not presently available in other video formats. DVD video discs containing data comprising motion pictures in encrypted form can be played either on special purpose machines (?DVD Players?) or personal computers (?PCs?) equipped with DVD drives. Encryption is necessary to prevent copying of the copyrighted material on the DVD. In order that the copyrighted motion picture can be played, either form of player device requires implementation of the CSS algorithm and ?master keys? to carry out the decryption of the data stored on the disc. The implementation that provides this decryption function is developed by the licensees of DVD CCA using the detailed specifications which is provided by DVD CCA to such licensees.

and wondered about the non-metric (thus certainly non-ISO) language there. A 5-inch DVD-ROM won't even fit into my Toshiba notebook's drive! A quick Google search for dvd diameter shows the standard diameter to be 120mm, not 5 inches. Indeed, the third link (as of a few minutes ago) was to Compaq's DVD-ROM and had 4.7 inches right in the summary, no additional clicking required for the non-DVD-owning public! On my calculator, 120/25.4 is about 4.7244 which is closer to 4.5 than 5.0.

Would bringing a "live" DVD drive to the courthouse help, I wonder? (No, I'm not volunteering, I'll be in Washington state that day.)

I think it's because artists got involved. HTML had some nice, simple editing functions, but then, over time, appearance became more important than content.. (if you doubt it, go to http://www.compaq.com and try to find anything....)

Digital could, look where it go them.

-joev

Our team is listed at http://speechbot .research.compaq.com/cgi-bin/query?help=about#team , and, in the press release, it explains that we use NT workstations for the content acquisition, a Linux farm to process the data, and Tru64 (formerly Digital Unix) machines to serve the site.

HTH,
Andrew Leonard
Webmaster
SpeechBot

Our team is listed at http://speechbot .research.compaq.com/cgi-bin/query?help=about#team , and, in the press release, it explains that we use NT workstations for the content acquisition, a Linux farm to process the data, and Tru64 (formerly Digital Unix) machines to serve the site.

HTH,
Andrew Leonard
Webmaster
SpeechBot

The press release has a little more information. We use workstations running NT to spider the sites; processing is done on a farm of Linux servers, and the UI runs on AlphaServer DS20 machines.

The site's FAQ admits to that (in not so many words)...

Warning: The "transcript" that is output by the speech recognition software (and shown in small extracts on the Results and Details pages) rarely matches what was spoken exactly, and often often does not read very well. Because different people speak at different rates and with different degrees of clarity, speech recognition software does not correctly interpret every word. However, research has shown that meaningful words are recognized with a high degree of accuracy, and that even when a word is missed, it will most likely be recognized when it is spoken somewhere else in the program.

And in all fairness, they are not claiming to be a "transcript service" per se, though I can certainly see a lot of transcript writers losing their jobs in the future as the technology advances.
-dr

On an un-related note, the about page says that Compaq has a research lab in Australia... sweet.
-dr

On an un-related note, the about page says that Compaq has a research lab in Australia... sweet.
-dr