Slashdot Mirror


Gadgets, Then & Now

An anonymous reader writes in to tell us about "A funny article about gadgets from the 70's & 80's compared to gadgets of today. Amazing that you can fit 25,000 5 1/4 diskettes on one 8GB compact flash, and phones weighed 11.5 pounds! "

287 comments

  1. Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by fatduck · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gee willikers! Remember when cars looked like this?? Wacky! Or remember when the earth looked like this?!!? Times sure are a changin'!

    --
    Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
    1. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by mctk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember when computers looked like this?

      --
      Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
    2. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember when computers looked like this?

      For those that don't know, "computer" used to be a job description. They were typically women that did parallel processing and redundant calculations by hand for places like NASA and the government.

      Its amazing, at least to me how fast computation has gotten, and how slow computation is still for scientists and engineers today. Even if a supercomputer could give an answer immediately like a google search, they will still find things that will burn CPUs for days, weeks, months, or years.

    3. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah.. You didn't necessarily get a whole lot done doing an all-nighter with a computer, but it was often a whole lot more enjoyable!

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    4. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      True. . .but with today's computers, if you spawn a child process, you're not liable to get hit up for support. . . . (grinning like hell, running for cover. . .)

    5. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      NASA? Human computers were passe by the time NASA showed up.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by jbengt · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by masdog · · Score: 1

      Its amazing, at least to me how fast computation has gotten, and how slow computation is still for scientists and engineers today. Even if a supercomputer could give an answer immediately like a google search, they will still find things that will burn CPUs for days, weeks, months, or years.

      Thats probably because the computations have gotten much more complicated. I don't know what scientists were using human computers for back in the day, but now they're using Chaos Theory and other highly advanced mathamatics to predict the weather and model the creation of a star.

    8. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Sideshow+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Worst... brothel... ever....

    9. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by volsung · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it's a near certainty that scientific computation will expand to fill the storage and CPU limits of current technology. The only constant is the patience of the computer operator... :)

    10. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by kimvette · · Score: 5, Funny

      And here is the event which spawned NASA:

      Truman: "Whistlin dixy! I want this sent to Area 51 for study!"
      General: "But Sir! That's where we're building our fake moon landing set."
      Truman: "Then we'll have to really land on the moon. Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies!"

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    11. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by OzoneLad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's amazing, at least to me how fast computation has gotten, and how slow computation is still for scientists and engineers today. Even if a supercomputer could give an answer immediately like a google search, they will still find things that will burn CPUs for days, weeks, months, or years."

      It's not so amazing if you remember that acceptable time delays in getting an answer don't change all that much in scientific computing. A bigger computer just means you can make your model more complete (ie closer to reality) and still have it run in a reasonable amount of time.

      In weather forecasting, for example, model development goes hand in hand with computer upgrades. When you get that next best, top-of-the-heap computer, you can be sure that the new model will take about as much time to run on the new machine as the old one did on the old machine. However, the new model will take a lot more variables into account, and will be more accurate over a finer scale. The acceptable delays were set a long time ago, so now it's just a matter of cramming more into that time.

      -HT

    12. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by kavau · · Score: 1

      And it will never stop. It's something called "exponential complexity".

    13. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by woolio · · Score: 3, Informative

      Remember when computers looked like this?

      For those that don't know, "computer" used to be a job description. They were typically women that did parallel processing and redundant calculations by hand for places like NASA and the government.

      Its amazing, at least to me how fast computation has gotten, and how slow computation is still for scientists and engineers today. ...


      I think part of that is these "scientists" salivate too much on how many nodes they can build and don't give much thought into making their algorithms more efficient, lower complexity, etc, etc....

      They are still using parallel processing to do REDUNDANT calculations... Just like the old days.

    14. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Truekaiser · · Score: 0

      i would like to point out all the alternative fuels for cars have been around since the beginning of the car along with a few that aren't around at the moment.

    15. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      What? Don't you remember the Apollo 13 movie? Tons of engineers going crazy with slide rules, trying to figure out how to save the space ship. It wasn't until very recent that computers came down in price enough that they could be used by mere mortals for simple calculations

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    16. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      And still it seems that Farmer's Almanac is much more accurate at predicting the weather than the local tv station, the weather network, or environment canada. All who seem to change their forcast for tuesday from rain to sun, and back to rain again, and on monday finally settle on rain, only for tuesday to end up being 30 degrees without a cloud in the sky.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    17. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Producing tables for the important mathematical functions, for use in astronomy and ballistics (as in aiming artillery).

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    18. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Servants · · Score: 1

      I think part of that is these "scientists" salivate too much on how many nodes they can build and don't give much thought into making their algorithms more efficient, lower complexity, etc, etc....

      They are still using parallel processing to do REDUNDANT calculations... Just like the old days.


      That's hard to believe... decent programmers are pretty easy to find, these days. I think it's more that lots of problems which once would have been too hard to bother computing have been upgraded to "manageable but slow", the level at which scientists must essentially always operate. (Easier problems have generally been solved by someone else already.) So they make their simulations one level more complex and closer to reality, or try their computations at all possible values of a couple of extra parameters.

    19. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by woolio · · Score: 1

      Most good programmers are not physicsts... Which one do you want implementing the program? Fast and inaccurate or slow and accurate?

      Large programs written in the early 80s may not be written in a manner that executes well on today's deeply pipelined superscalar processors.... [use of linked lists, etc, etc].

      And many government research groups only hire citizens....

    20. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      An engineer with a slide rule is not a computer. A computer was someone who laboriously made all those log tables. They computed ballistic tables in WWII. Tables, tables and more tables. Etc.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    21. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Poingggg · · Score: 1

      .....they will still find things that will burn CPUs for days, weeks, months, or years.....

      But we already know what the outcome will be: 42!

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    22. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Servants · · Score: 1

      Most good programmers are not physicsts... Which one do you want implementing the program? Fast and inaccurate or slow and accurate?

      If research physicists with any grant money need programming done on a regular basis, they hire programmers to implement their simulations. This sort of science hasn't been done by loners for a hundred years.

      Large programs written in the early 80s may not be written in a manner that executes well on today's deeply pipelined superscalar processors.... [use of linked lists, etc, etc].

      Grandparent was talking about orders of magnitude, not processor-level optimizations. Besides, you're not seriously suggesting that such a program would execute faster on 80s processors than on today's...!

    23. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by woolio · · Score: 1

      Grandparent was talking about orders of magnitude, not processor-level optimizations. Besides, you're not seriously suggesting that such a program would execute faster on 80s processors than on today's...!

      The difference between a program with excellent cache performance and one with poor cache performance **IS** a few orders of magnitude in execution time....

      Even for a given program, just re-ordering (nothing else), the way it accesses a list of data can improve execution time by a factor of 10... They don't teach that in Physics...

      Is a factor of 10 significant? Well, if one is spending days/week/months running a simulation on 1000 nodes, I think it is.... A 10000 node cluster may not be within their research budget! And even if they have a 64k node BlueGene.... It will be a while before they invent a 640K-node BlueGene, so yes a factor of 10 still matters.

      Of course todays processors will beat those of the 80s... The question is: by how much?

    24. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      Read 'Chryptonomicon', it's a great read with two storylines, one in the present and one in WW2. The old storyline has plenty of computers -- even a few electric ones.

    25. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I'd like to salivate on the nodes of that long-necked, dark-haired beauty in the center. Look at that hip-to-waist ratio!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Bzap · · Score: 1

      Good times, you could actually marry your computer!

    27. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by miro+f · · Score: 1

      I think part of that is these "scientists" salivate too much on how many nodes they can build and don't give much thought into making their algorithms more efficient, lower complexity, etc, etc....

      You'd be surprised to find out that many algorithms used now were actually discovered many many years before computers and proven to be absolutely impossible to improve upon (unless you're talking about quantum computing, but once again the best algorithms in most cases well predate actual quantum computers)

      scientists aren't all as stupid as you may think

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    28. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by bermudatriangleoflov · · Score: 0

      I have never see a bunch of uglier women in all my life!!

    29. Re:Holy Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Batman! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Back around 1991, I was working at a biochemistry lab (protein crystallography). A physics grad student went to see my boss about working in the lab. He had this idea about doing quantum simulations of protein dynamics on computers. My boss said that it was a neat idea and theoretically doable, but that computers would need to improve by a few orders of magnitude before it was feasible.

      15 years later, I think that that's what they're now doing with folding-at-home.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  2. Meh.. by celardore · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can fit anything on my flash cards. They're so small I just pile it all on top of them.
    Once I put a cup of coffee on my flash card, technology is awesome.

    1. Re:Meh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah! Another member of the Society For Putting Things On Top Of Other Things!

  3. Hold on there by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

    Woah woah woah! Are you trying to tell me that progress has been made in the past 30 years with regards to technology?!? I'm glad this is finally getting some press...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:Hold on there by dmitrygr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Somebody alert the RIAA, maybe now they will notice...

      --
      -------
      1. Enjoy your job
      2. Make lots of money
      3. Work within the law

      Choose any two.
    2. Re:Hold on there by russellh · · Score: 1

      Change, if not progress.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    3. Re:Hold on there by Dmala · · Score: 1

      The amazing part is the way microprocessors and related technologies have been rocketing forward, while other technologies have been advancing at a much more sedate pace. Consider the automobile: modern cars are more efficient and somewhat safer than cars from 30 years ago, but they are virtually identical in form and function and they operate on the same basic principles. In fact, most of the advances in automotive technology have come from replacing various mechanical and electrical systems with microprocessors.

    4. Re:Hold on there by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      sudo: ku: command not found
      That's because it's supposed to be split as su doku.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  4. Things are shrinking at a fast pace... by ravee · · Score: 2, Funny

    Holy cow!! Going by this trend, things are going to be very very small in the future. Maybe we might need eyes with microscopic powers to use some of the gadgets of the future.

    --
    Linux Help
    for all things on Linux
    1. Re:Things are shrinking at a fast pace... by slashmaddy · · Score: 1

      The main aim of shrinking technology is not to keep shrinking indefinitely. It's all about putting more convenience in an easy to use gadget. Earlier, carrying around a 11.5lb phone was inconvenient, so, they have morphed into 100g phones. And there's no sense in shrinking them further. Technology changes would just add more punch into those now. The rate at which cellphones are getting feature packed, I see the death of (exclusive) PDAs within 5 years.

      Another example could be laptops. They're still too big to walk on the streets while using them. Better input and foldable displays would soon change this scenario and we would see people editing excel sheets while walking on the pavement!

    2. Re:Things are shrinking at a fast pace... by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Well the obvious answer is for use to shrink right with technology...maybe that's what the government is planning for the people all along *puts on stylish tin foil hat*

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    3. Re:Things are shrinking at a fast pace... by cskrat · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for a phone that has a decent voice chat feature.

      --
      My God! It's full of eval()'s.
    4. Re:Things are shrinking at a fast pace... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The rate at which cellphones are getting feature packed, I see the death of (exclusive) PDAs within 5 years.

      Weren't PDAs copmpletely displaced by feature-laden mobiles in 2001 and then again in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005? Seriously, "cellphones will kill the PDA" is exactly the same kind of statement as "next year will be the year of desktop Linux".


      Another example could be laptops. They're still too big to walk on the streets while using them. Better input and foldable displays would soon change this scenario and we would see people editing excel sheets while walking on the pavement!

      So you mean to say that PDAs will be killed by mobiles while laptops will be killed by PDAs?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    5. Re:Things are shrinking at a fast pace... by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Another example could be laptops. They're still too big to walk on the streets while using them. Better input and foldable displays would soon change this scenario and we would see people editing excel sheets while walking on the pavement!

      Wow, and I thought people gave me strange looks when I walk down the street reading a book. But seriously, why would anyone want to do such a thing?

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  5. Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by bogie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A whole six items. *cough*

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by koweja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, they didn't have as many things back then. They were happy with their six pieces of technology.

    2. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by DesireCampbell · · Score: 5, Funny

      We were happy, and we had to walk three miles, uphill, through snow to get them too!

      Ya damn kids.

      --
      Whoo, signature!
      DesireCampbell.com
    3. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      And when you got there, you had to generate your own power to make them work.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by AlexanderDitto · · Score: 0

      Power? Back then, we didn't have power.

      Our gadgets ran on spit. And we liked it, too!

      --
      No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
    5. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by Virak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Too bad we can't generate power from bad jokes. If we could, slashdot could power the entire world!

    6. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The entire world? Back in my day, our crap jokes could only power a small peninsular, and we liked it that way.

    7. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm was just glad when we finally invented feet in the early ninties. Damn that made walking easier.

      KFG

    8. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by rs79 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Always be suspicious when there's more google ads than information.

      5" floppies? Bah, those were for children. Real men used 8" floppies. They worked. The 5" ones were always flakey.

      The first videogame machine I bought was Pong. $300. Sound retarded? Yeah I thought so too. I took it back 2 days later for a refund.

      I didn't know anybody with an 8-track car player. They were as stupid then as they seem now. Lots of people has casette decks though which really only became obsolete in fairly recent memory.

      The price of things was fairly different. My first decent color monitor did 800x600 and cost $3500 1984 dollars. Yesterday I bought a nearly new 21" Sony 2000xwhatever for $2 in Sally Ann.

      Gas was forty four cents a gallon the first time I filled up my $700 two year old Italian sportscar.

      Nobody had a portable phone back then. Everybody has a pulse rotary phone. Here in Canada we still pay $2/mo on our phone bill for "pushbutton" service.

      Acoustic couplers (300 baud) vs. DSL modems would have been good to include.

      A carbon dioxide laser was millions of dollars and 30 feet long. Now they're $1000 on flea-bay and fit in a briefcase.

      Tha cancer cure rate hasn't changed since the 60s. We can detect it earlier. Actually that's also true if you compare it to 1902.

      SCO were assholes for as long as they've been around. So was Bill Gates. And Woz.

      A Hasselblad was then and is still the best camera.

      Back then you could get stuff repaired. Timex in the 50's invented the "it's cheaper to give you a new one than even look at the defective POS we sold you" philosophy.

      Kids grew long hair to rebel. Now they cut their arms.

      We lived in fear of nuclear war and flu pandemic. Just like today.

      I can't find most of my flashcards. My old flexible diskettes still work amazingly. I have several broken digital cameras. My Canon AE1 still works.

      You can buy today, a working, drivable diesel Mercedes for the price of changing the spark plugs on a new gas one.

      Popular science was more science and less popular back then. And had a helluva lot more pages.

      The price of a neon tetra hasn't changed in 30 years. An S class Mercedes cost 20X what it did 30 years ago. But it's the same price adjusted for inflation.

      Windows was a bad idea in the 80's. It's worse now. Unix was cool in the 70's and actually worked.

      I really think if somebody had slept for 30 years and woken up today it would take them about 10 minutyes to catch up. And then they'd say "this is IT?!?"

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    9. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Tha cancer cure rate hasn't changed since the 60s. We can detect it earlier. Actually that's also true if you compare it to 1902."

      Incorrect, cancer cure and survival rates have gotten better since the 1960s.

    10. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by Usekh · · Score: 1, Funny

      Spit? SPIT?!? sheer luxury lad, we used to lay awake at nights dreaming of having spit!

    11. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Nobody disses the Woz!

    12. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by Pusene · · Score: 1

      Crap jolkes? When I was young we only had crap to power our houses. We had to let it ferment in thside the house just so we wouldn't freeze to death!

      --
      Error #13: No coffee. Operator halted. Please place boot device at bottom.
    13. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A Hasselblad was then and is still the best camera.


      Sacrilege! The best is, and always was, Leica. It's not open for argument! ;-)

      Although Hasselblad and Rollei make kick ass cameras too (and I love them both, but not as much as vintage Leicas).
    14. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by arminw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      .....Actually that's also true if you compare it to 1902."....

      The cancer and heart attack rate in 1902 was much less than today. People died from infectious diseases, such as TB, flu, pneumonia, polio and others. However, the death rate today, overall, is still exactly what it always was, 100%.

      --
      All theory is gray
    15. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Nobody disses the Woz!"

      You've never actually met him, have you?

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    16. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by russellh · · Score: 1

      Yah, back in the eighties we didn't have any of these fancy scroll wheel mice. we had to point and click.

      and we liked it.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    17. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, cancer death rates are falling.

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/november96/c ancer_11-14.html
      http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov96/nci-14.htm

      From 1996 - "Cancer death rates have dropped three percent since 1990, that's 15,000 fewer Americans succumbing to the disease every year."

      "Since about 1900, the American people have regularly been required to report causes of death, and we have fairly accurate information dating back that far. This is reported through the National Center for Health Statistics. And actually, Dr. Phil Cole, from the University of Alabama, was the first one to identify looking at information through 1994/95 and adding up all the causes of cancer death. And he was the first to identify this trend from the total death cases, dating back to 1990 as a peak year, so '91, '92, '93, '94, and now '95, the death rate has gone down, and what's even more encouraging is in '95, the decrease was almost 2 percent. So depending on how you calculate it, the rate of decrease in deaths is actually accelerating, very good news, indeed."

    18. Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I would make a funny, insightful followup of redeeming value to that but that kind of /. post hasn't been invented yet.

      (Note to future generations: And we like it!)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  6. Retro tech... by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 0

    I love technology from the past, especially the early to mid eighties. It always had much more personality. The more buttons, lights, and coloreful displays, the better. Today's stuff is bland in comparsion.

  7. Doesn't really say much by DarthChris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TFA isn't very deep, I was expecting an interesing and in-depth read.
    As the old joke goes: Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

    --
    Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
    1. Re:Doesn't really say much by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Nostalgia is soooo 70s!

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  8. In-depth reporting by fatduck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This article took all of what, 5 minutes using Google Image Search to throw together? Brilliant!

    --
    Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
    1. Re:In-depth reporting by Frankie70 · · Score: 1


      This article took all of what, 5 minutes using Google Image Search to throw together? Brilliant!


      Yes. But, back in the 80's when they did a 60's vs 80's article, it took them 5 months.
      And they didn't have no Google either.

  9. Refinement by Bullfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thing is, as clunky as all that stuff was back in the day, the same some exists now, only in sleeker, more refined format. If you look especially how much a lot of stuff like phones and computers have shrunk in the last 20 years while increasing capacity, it's enough to make you believe that powerful, wearable and unobtrusive computers etc will be common within say 15 years. The hype we get over new products that disappoint is often enough to make you say "it's all crap", but comparatives like this is a reminder that real progress is made.

    1. Re:Refinement by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you look especially how much a lot of stuff like phones and computers have shrunk in the last 20 years while increasing capacity, it's enough to make you believe that powerful, wearable and unobtrusive computers etc will be common within say 15 years.

      You can buy such today, however being small isn't always good, and that'a a huge obstacle to small wearing gadgets. Now if we put direct nerve interface into the picture...

      Virtual 24 inch flat screen and a virtual keyboard you can type on (or even just "think" about the letters if you will) will open the way to making the computers as small as technologicallypossible while retaining usability and universal use.

      BTW something we lost from the early days of computing and gadgets is that I could hammer my Apple and monitor and it'll work just fine, while my modern TFT may pop a dead pixel just if I look it in a strange way.

      Modern technology is somewhat less reliable, you really gotta go to the higher end to see reliable modern products.

      Of course, someone might argue that 5 1/4 floppies weren't that reliable either (especially compared to modenr Flash memory cards).

    2. Re:Refinement by radicalskeptic · · Score: 1
      --
      WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
    3. Re:Refinement by srcosmo · · Score: 1
      I could hammer my Apple and monitor and it'll work just fine, while my modern TFT may pop a dead pixel just if I look it in a strange way.

      My friend used to own a wonky Mac classic. Every so often, the screen would go dark, and only 5 or 6 well-placed strikes with a hammer (always kept nearby) could encourage it to turn back on.

      All things considered, it lasted longer than you'd think.

      --
      free speach
      Did you mean: free speech
  10. OMG!!! by bcmm · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Oh look, electronic equipment is faster and smaller than it used to be lololol!!!

    FFS. This is front-page news?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:OMG!!! by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      I wonder if, in the beginning, you could impress your friends by showing how huge your portable phone was :) Can someone explain me the logic here anyway? From experience, I learned the following: Car, house, boat, cooking equipment, TV, reproductive organs should be big, while mobile phones, mp3 player, noses should be small. But how do you know beforehand in what category something will fall?

      And where do the laptops fit? 19 inch laptops? 12 inch laptops? I get confused!

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    2. Re:OMG!!! by Maset · · Score: 1

      It was awesome just to be able to afford and use one (mobile phone that is).

    3. Re:OMG!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      no chicks want big vaginas.

      technology when first introduced is seen as obscene - an abomination - and is untrusted. So once introduced - the race is on for tech to become as seamless and unobtrusive as possible. Hence, silent, small, easily coordinated, etc. The ideal condition is technology that doesn't look like tech at all.

      big cars? not necessarily. most expensive.

      big houses? again - not necessarily. donald trump sells apts for $30 million here in ny. 1500 square feet.

      consensus is the issue. it's what everyone agrees to.

      for example, I work in media - and most in media are gay. so amongst gay men, the ideal condition for the phallus is not large at all as that presents problems in regards to what they like to do with the phallus.

      women like large phalluses, but in general - they like the idea of "taming" one and having possession of it more than actually having sex with one. I know... my dick is 9 1/2 inches long. they love looking at it and stuff - but they hate sex. which then puts me in a tough position. Most will confess after sex that while women love to look at big dongs - there is a sweet spot as far as size is concerned. It's 6 inches to 8 inches - where it feels good and is big enough to be felt but small enough to not destroy tissue.

    4. Re:OMG!!! by RyatNrrd · · Score: 1

      P33p73z |=R0m da 80z w3r3 teh L4M0rZ!!!one!@!@!!!111MFA0

      Man we're never gonna look as dumb as them with their disks and their car stereos.

  11. "...phones weighed 11.5 pounds" by magetoo · · Score: 5, Funny
    Regarding phones, it's probably a bigger change that the word has changed meaning.
    (It used to mean "that thing that you plug into the wall that lets you talk to other people far away", for you kids. Yes, outlets in the wall, at your home.)

    I wonder how you'd explain todays über-gadgets to someone from the eighties. "This? Oh, it's my .. um, tricorder. Yeah, that's it."

    1. Re:"...phones weighed 11.5 pounds" by K8Fan · · Score: 1
      ...and phones weighed 11.5 pounds!

      If phones still weighed the same amount, Russell Crowe would be in prison for murder.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    2. Re:"...phones weighed 11.5 pounds" by masdog · · Score: 1

      There was a company that made Tricorders in the 1990s, but unfortunately, they went out of business.

  12. seeing that videogame by scenestar · · Score: 1

    on the xbox 360 I really don't see that 30 year difference.

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    1. Re:seeing that videogame by pimpimpim · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, if you look at the videogame, you'll see that they managed to put the pictures in the wrong order: left is the new one, right the old one :)

      I've spend a bit of time on www.c64s.com lately, and found out that a lot of the games of the time really weren't worth the effort of loading in. Remember listening to 30 minutes of peeps and squicks to find out that you just loaded an amazingly crappy game? (luckily you got a cracked version from a copied tape for free anyway) The were some real quality games (Commando!!) with very cool sound etc, and the memory just biases to think that all games were better that time. Hell no!

      By the way: did anyone ever manage to play Monty Mole with success? I never found out wath the goal was!!! Or Mission Impossible (with the buildings where you had to search lockers), I think I never finished that one

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    2. Re:seeing that videogame by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      So pimpimpim sez:

      " I've spend a bit of time on www.c64s.com lately, and found out that a lot of the games of the time really weren't worth the effort of loading in. Remember listening to 30 minutes of peeps and squicks to find out that you just loaded an amazingly crappy game? (luckily you got a cracked version from a copied tape for free anyway)"

      Which prompted people to then buy the 1541 disk drive. Which was somewhat faster than the cassette drive.

      Shortly afterwards, an EPYX FastLoad cartridge was inevitably purchased to go along with the appalling slow disk drive.

      (I really want to set up my Commodore 128 system again. As much as I like my PowerMac, the 128 is still my favorite computer.)

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    3. Re:seeing that videogame by Snad · · Score: 1

      I managed to finish Monty On The Run, and I'm pretty sure my brother completed Mission Impossible (I found it, well, impossible...).

      There were a hell of a lot of crap games for a small number of absolute gems, but then the more things change the more they stay the same. Today we get zillions of mediocre 3D FPS games. Back then we got zillions of mediocre 2D platform games.

      Having said that, there was also some genuine creativity if you looked for it (Little Computer People, for example), and the ratio of crap:decent was probably lower then than it is now.

    4. Re:seeing that videogame by Sigma+7 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      By the way: did anyone ever manage to play Monty Mole with success? I never found out wath the goal was!!!


      I think it involves trying to get all the money you can. In one of the games, you need to impress a fiancee and need as much money as possible.

      In either case, it's a game that requires creating a very big map - especially since it branches and has airports that bring you from one area to another.

      Or Mission Impossible (with the buildings where you had to search lockers), I think I never finished that one


      In Impossible Mission, searching lockers sometimes gives you a picture of some sort - there are 36 pictures in total. The objective is to take these pictures and place them one-atop-another to create a solid rectangle - up to 9 in total. Obtaining and orienting each rectangle in the correct direction gives you 1 code letter. You may sometimes need lift resets and

      For reference, you have six hours to complete the game. Getting killed takes 10 minutes. Using the phone hint system costs a couple of minutes. Note that the C64 versions that are commonly available have a major bug - if a robot shoots off the left side of the screen, you die. Naturally, this results in an insta-kill in some layouts.

      Impossible Mission II is similar - although the objective is to collect 6 our of 8 tapes from the building subsections. However, you need to find code numbers to leave a subsection of a building.

    5. Re:seeing that videogame by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      whoa, cool. Now I actually feel like trying them again, maybe I'll actually get somewhere :)

      Apparently some people took the effort to make a remake http://montymole.sourceforge.net/

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    6. Re:seeing that videogame by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      As a nine years old it was damn hard to find out to "use rubber".

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    7. Re:seeing that videogame by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      By the way: did anyone ever manage to play Monty Mole with success? I never found out wath the goal was!!! Or Mission Impossible (with the buildings where you had to search lockers), I think I never finished that one

      I finished Mission Impossible. Was a student at the time, so had plenty of time. Never finished my studies though.

    8. Re:seeing that videogame by BlastQuake · · Score: 1

      Chris Tucker...*connect the dots* Loadstar! It was my absolute favorite disk magazine of all time, I wish I had managed to get all the issues.

      --
      "What use is power to the Keeps of Balance?" -Disnt of Nightmare LpMud
    9. Re:seeing that videogame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By today's standards, Mission Impossible is not that hard. I was even able to finish the buggy version (the one with the room where you die if a robot shoot at the wall). If you really want a difficult game, try "The Last V8". I did finnish this game, but it took me a LOT of practice.

    10. Re:seeing that videogame by VlartBlart · · Score: 0

      The ending of Mission Impossible involved a jigsaw puzzle (it was pretty easy) then there was a little cut-scene. I finished the game last year playing it on my ipaq :)

    11. Re:seeing that videogame by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was a grand resource. The guys behind it were seriously devoted to the C64.

      I scored a bunch of them when the local users group went belly up.

      I wish I had the room to set up my 128 system again. For all their super graphics and billions of polygons, there's damn few games today that have the same appeal and playability as some of these old 8-bit games.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  13. The downside by Doubting+Maxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The downside is that techology seems to be getting more unreliable, from a user perspective.

    I'm on my third PS2 right now, but my Atari 2600 (still fun!) works like new...

    1. Re:The downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for this is because they usually want you to buy their support, because they know they can purposelly sell stuff broken, and as long as it looks shiny and other people have it, people will buy it.

      Similar to the American car companies in comparison to, say Japanese car manufacturers.

    2. Re:The downside by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The downside is that techology seems to be getting more unreliable, from a user perspective.

      I'm on my third PS2 right now, but my Atari 2600 (still fun!) works like new...


      That's pretty true, though I wonder if Sony's build quality is the worst in that industry.

      Besides, the original list price of that Atari was $199, making that about $656 in today's money.

    3. Re:The downside by mangu · · Score: 1
      techology seems to be getting more unreliable


      That's just your impression, because you have forgotten all the stuff you had back then that broke up. Your Atari 2600 amazes you because it has been running for 20 years or so, but maybe something you bought this year will still be running 30 years from now, how can you tell at this point?


      My own personal image of reliability comes from all the calculators with LED displays I had in the 1970s, before LCD displays became common. Those calculators had NiCd batteries that started leaking after a couple of years and the circuits quickly gave up after that.


      BTW, remember the expression "planned obsolescence", invented to justify crappy products? That concept exists at least since the 1960s.

    4. Re:The downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just your impression, because you have forgotten all the stuff you had back then that broke up.

      Nope. Economics have evolved also. Why sell it once someone's lifetime when you can sell it every year?
    5. Re:The downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it's just Sony.

      My Nintendo hardware's survived some nasty crashes (physical ones). And then there's the 32X, which actually works _better_ as it gets older...

    6. Re:The downside by springbox · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm on my third PS2 right now, but my Atari 2600 (still fun!) works like new...

      Could it be that the Atari is simpler in design and less prone to breaking whereas the PS2 is much more complex and has notably more points of failure?

    7. Re:The downside by Tolleman · · Score: 1

      Aproximatly what a PS3 will cost?

    8. Re:The downside by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Dunno if I was unlucky or not, but I had to take my 2600 in for repairs at least three times that I can remember.

      I exchanged my Commodore 64 at least eight times before I got one that worked. And it was considered regular maintenance to bring your 1541 drive in for "realignment." Imagine telling a kid today that he can't play his favorite game every couple of months because his drive needs to be realigned.

      It seems like components have gotten more reliable, but the entire assembly of components hasn't for some reason.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    9. Re:The downside by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      Could it be that the Atari is simpler in design and less prone to breaking whereas the PS2 is much more complex and has notably more points of failure?

      Nowadays, at least in the electronics world, there is a much smaller number of discrete components in an electronic circuit than just 10 years ago.

      Basically a lot of the functionality which before was implemented by multiple basic integrated circuits spread all over the circuit board has been move into specialized integrated circuits.

      In the area of computers, circuit boards nowadays have more pathways (esp. because of the widers buses, often 128 bit instead of 8 or even 4 bit) but less contacts (even though current integrated circuits have more contacts, there are a lot less discrete components now).

      Just compare a PC motherboard from 10 years ago with a current one if you want an example of that.

      Thus increased complexity doesn't seem to be the problem - the increase in complexity has happened inside integrated circuits which are much less prone to mechanical failures than circuit boards. Modern ICs are more prone to heat induced failures and the cheap ones also can't survive voltage spikes very well.

      More likelly it's the cheap power sources that can't take extreme spikes in the power from the electric grid (which in all honestly if much noisier than the expected 50-60 cycles sinousoidal wave), the cheap heat dissipation arranjements for the hottest ICs and the low quality plastic controlers mass produced to last + 1 day.

  14. "The tchotchke society" by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone--I think it was Robert Kuttner but can't find the reference--was trying to explain the "paradox" that all of the economic figures seem good, yet polls consistently show U. S. citizens are pessimistic about the economic future.

    His belief is that the problem is that the official inflation figures contain a mixture of prices for things like consumer electronics gadgets, which have continuously decreased in price, and things like healthcare costs and college tuition, which have continuously increased in price at far faster rate than "the" inflation rate.

    The problem is that things like healthcare and education are much more important ultimately than cellular phones that can show video.

    He said that we are turning into "a tchotchke society," rich in frivolous gadgets but poor in literacy rates, infant mortality, etc.

    I love my iPod, but I'm worried about my medical insurance.

    1. Re:"The tchotchke society" by Raleel · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    2. Re:"The tchotchke society" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The economic figures only look good to extreme casual observers because they keep removing important indices from the consumer price indicies. Examples are food and fuel costs, they no longer count for some reason, yet they used to use them. Uhh, seems like those are some important necessary bills there.. Another one - 30 years ago (around then) housing costs were considered expensive once you cracked 25% of your net for the mortgage, now it is 50%. Car loans were 12 months or tops 18 months, now they are 60 months. House notes were ten or at most twenty years, now thirty is common and we have the "no prinicple, interest only" loans as well(IE, never ever paid off, you have the illusion of buying when you are just another class of perpetual renter). That's *severely* downhill. Unemployment stats are another way they make things look rosy "we added 100,000 jobs this quarter!", They sort of neglect to mention that the previous quarter they lost over 100,000 well paying jobs in wealth-creation (such as manufacturing) with bennies and replaced them with half price lower paying jobs in the "service" wealth re-arranging economy with little to no bennies.

      They keep changing the parameters on what is considered "good". US household debt is now 11 trillion dollars. This is considered "good" now when obviously it isn't, what would be "good" is everything paid off, zero debt, and 11 trillion in savings.

      It's going to get worse, there is a big major move to start moving away from the petrodollar to the petroeuro in international oil prices, in fact, I will posit that is the main reason we invaded Iraq, saddam was a notorious bad guy for decades, this was nothing new. We invaded VERY shortly after he switched his oil sales to euros.

      Iran is now less than two months away from their oil bourse denominated in euros. It has taken them awhile to get their ducks in a row with it, but it keeps moving ahead slowly. they sell a LOT of oil around the planet. Even if we invade based on those nuke claims, and the oil production gets wiped out, we could EASILY see 200 buck a barrel oilo. think that won't hurt the global economy? there is NO replacement for that volume of oil on the planet, none, nothing that could be brought online within even two or three years. China is now doing direct swaps, manufactured technology and engineering expertise for energy, eliminating most of any sort of "cash" involved, and their demand is projected to be equal to todays global demand within ten years.

      Now, someone explain why they would want to have to be forced to go through a severe skim by using dollars again for that? They could use their accumulated dollars elsewhere, buying up more extreme high tech, they don't need it just to buy crude or natural gas, not much anyway. And why would europeans want to be forced to use dollars instead of euros for imported energy? Eliminating the middleman skim there with petrodollars results in HUGE savings for them, and energy costs just keep going through the roof,much faster than any other inflationary pressures and dwarfing average wage increases. So let us apply occams razor to the future a little with the US economy. It is being "second worlded" as fast as the pirate globalists can pull it off, and that has been their plan all along. The only reason they didn't do it all at once was to try and avoid a revolutionary backlash,(especially in the US where anti fascist "tools" are still in common ownership) as in an actual physical revolution. They have to do the nice and easy continual rearrangment combined with the mass brainwashing that the thousand cuts are all neglibile. And they want the US second worlded because that is the society they want, full high tech, but basically only two classes of humans, a big global plutocracy. We are right now in the mass switch to the illusion of voting with blackbox voting. We already passed the illusion of major political party differences once you cut through the soundbites and see what actually happens. Here's a good example how they pl

    3. Re:"The tchotchke society" by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you've brought up the economic issues because I wanted to make a point about interest. People think interest is evil or at least "unearned income", but the growth in technology argues precisely the opposite. The phenomenon of interest is a result of the very real fact that production earlier is better (from the standpoint of society) than production later, and consumption later rather than earlier is better for society. When you loaned out your money rather than cashing it in for present consumption, you allowed people to improve the level of technology, and in general, society's capability of satisfying human desires.

      The future will be a better place in terms of technology. Our decisions now, of how much to set aside for it through investment, greatly determine how much better it will be. Those who save should be praised.

      That said, I think the AC replying to you had it right. The market is much more shackled where there has been little progress (health care/education) than where it has progressed (newer technologies). Notice how there's no government certification for programmers that you have to meet before writing code (yet). Be thankful for that.

    4. Re:"The tchotchke society" by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      To throw an Mises economic spin on this, notice that the prices increasing faster than the inflation rate have heavy doses of government intervention, while those increasing slower or even decreasing are have relatively little government intervention. Of course, inflation itself created by government futzing with the money supply.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:"The tchotchke society" by notnAP · · Score: 1

      I love my iPod, but I'm worried about my medical insurance.

      You should be, especially considering the possibility of hearing loss. (1,439 links to fear mongering "health news" articles omited for the betterment of all mankind.)

      Wise cracks aside, you have a very good point. The real quality of life is what's important, and while technogadgets make life more fun, more enjoyable, they are not really a true sign of an improving soceity. And you bring up some of the indicators that are, especially education.

      Besides, it's not like the technogadgetry here in America is all that beter than everywhere else in the developed world. Hell, I live within 10 miles of Lowell, MA, and Nashua, NH, and my cell reception is so bad, I cannot rely on it from within my home. (I'm in the middle of a 5 miles radius dead spot, despite living next door to a major school complex in a city of about 30,000 people. Blame local pols for the anti-tower craze? Blame the telcoms for not developing better technology - we are fairly behind other countries in cell technology deployment? Whatever. Point is, my technogadget isn't working much better than it would have in 1980. We're talking about cell phones, here. This isn't exactly cutting edge technology here).

      And at the risk of being targeted as a liberal-flamebaiter, these indicators have been in steep decline not only of late, but going back to those "heady, feel good days" of the Reagan era. Maybe it's the idea that religion nullifies the need for education, or that the method of retaining power employed by the neocons relies so heavily on misinformation. Ah, but I digress.

      Good post.

    6. Re:"The tchotchke society" by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      And if you enjoyed that, you'll enjoy this also.

    7. Re:"The tchotchke society" by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Using his examples I don't think that's fair. The things that are decreasing in cost are the ones that have very little intrinsic value. Cell phones for instance. They're just sand and congealed petrochemicals, intrinsic value a few cents. Their cost comes from the knowledge needed to make them work. That knowledge costs quite a bit to produce once, but then very little to maintain. Things like education, health care, bread and gasoline though continue to cost pretty much the same amount or more (health care for example, more cool machines, more cost) as time goes on because the up front cost isn't so huge as to make the incremental cost almost irrelevant.

    8. Re:"The tchotchke society" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone--I think it was Robert Kuttner but can't find the reference--was trying to explain the "paradox" that all of the economic figures seem good, yet polls consistently show U. S. citizens are pessimistic about the economic future.

      It is a paradox. Sort of like once Enron's share price started dropping, all the economic figures seemed good, yet investors were pessimistic about its future. What a shocker, that people would be suspicious when fed figures that are obviously complete and utter lies produced by self-serving criminals.

    9. Re:"The tchotchke society" by woolio · · Score: 1

      The only reason they didn't do it all at once was to try and avoid a revolutionary backlash,(especially in the US where anti fascist "tools" are still in common ownership) as in an actual physical revolution.

      Would these "tools" happen to be guns?

    10. Re:"The tchotchke society" by __aabwba5127 · · Score: 0

      Hmfff I agree with most of what you're saying, except that as a Canadian my country is much, much better suited to fight this. Our mix of socialist/centrist Ogovernment allows us much better protection against economic pauperization than the States are.

    11. Re:"The tchotchke society" by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Huh? The cost of a product isn't its raw materials. Unless it's a commodity, that is, like bread or gasoline. Far more important is the cost of production. That cell phone may be mostly silicon and congealed petroleum, but the cost to produce it in just that particular configuration is much higher.

      But even the cost of production doesn't mean much. A price is based on what the producer and consumer can agree on, nothing more. If the cost of production is higher than the price, then the good just doesn't get made.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    12. Re:"The tchotchke society" by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Alright, assuming we're talking about a product that IS made, it has a minimum price that it must carry. If you read my post carefully, I make the distinction between material cost and total cost. My point actually depended on that distinction. A loaf of bread, some gasoline (which DO have production cost, by the way -- do you think they just appear fully formed?) have MOST of their cost represented by material cost and individual production cost -- the cost of one is quite similar to the cost of a thousand.

      Now, if you look at the tchotchke, it's different. One cell phone costs an incredible amount to make because of all the research etc. that goes into making it. But the thousandth or hundred thousandth or millionth one is pretty much free, once the first one is paid for.

      THAT's the difference. The tech stuff has very little intrinsic value, which is why if you drop your cell phone in the toilet you just go get another one. If you drop your gold bar or your hand carved statue into the toilet you fish it out and clean it off.

    13. Re:"The tchotchke society" by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      I love my iPod, but I'm worried about my medical insurance.

      so... umm... Can I have your iPod when you're gone?

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    14. Re:"The tchotchke society" by Politburo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Food and energy is not removed from the CPI. However, most news articles and economic columns, etc, these days look at 'core-CPI' to estimate inflation. 'Core-CPI' is the CPI minus food and energy. If you go here, you'll see that "all items" is the top choice, with "all, less food and energy" underneath.

    15. Re:"The tchotchke society" by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

      Thanks! And, thank goodness, I was pretty much accurate about the author and the gist of the article.

    16. Re:"The tchotchke society" by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

      No, because the RIAA would sue my estate, because I didn't keep all the original CDs (and LPs!) that are on it.

      My will instructs my executor to destroy my iPod first, erase all the um, well, you know, erase the hard drives on my computer second, and worry about settling my debts third.

  15. It was better back then by koweja · · Score: 0

    Sure, we have cooler things than in the 70's and 80's, but they didn't have That 80's show.

    1. Re:It was better back then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, we have cooler things than in the 70's and 80's, but they didn't have That 80's show.

      Uh, we only had it for like three weeks! It was so bad it made me nostaligic for Chevy Chase's talk show!

  16. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone will note nothing earth shatteringly new - just smaller lighter better

    lets compare the differences betwwen 1966 to 1986 vs 1986 to 2006 and see where the biggest leap is.

    IMHO there has been nothing innovative since the 70s

  17. nostalgia for nerds, stuff that mattered by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
    Come on people, stop whining and enjoy a good bit of nerd nostalgia! :)

    As a kid (lucky me), I had a seiko RC-1000 that you could program with a commodore 64! It took a shitload of time to fill in all the data and there was a maximum of 80 lines, but still! I remember trying to program my french homework in it, but in the end it took longer than just learning the work by heart :)

    RC-1000 and other nerd watch nostalgia: http://pocketcalculatorshow.com/nerdwatch/fun2.htm l

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  18. So little change? by redelm · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The thing I found remarkable from this allegedly "high contrast" comparision is how little there actually is.

    I used floppies more than I'll ever use flash. I only used the big mobile phone for a few weekends as Dutyman, but it was more important than my cell is now. Everything else is just cosmetic. My old 8088 PC pretty much does what my current one does.

    The big difference is the WWW, especially search engines. I used to spend lots of time in libraries and with the Yellow Pages.

    1. Re:So little change? by plusser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the last 30 years:-

      - The only supersonic airliner was Concorde - No longer in service.

      - Nobody has been to the moon either.

      Yes we have this "cool" technology these days, but we are not putting it to good use. My manager at work placed his laptop next to his 20 year old Sinclair Spectrum, and proceed to load Manic Miner (from tape) on the Specturm while the laptop was booting-up. Guess what? he was playing manic miner before the laptop had booted up - now that is progress.

      Just because something is old, it doesn't make it obsolete. The life of the average civil jet airliner is 25 years; just imagine trying to build spare electronic controllers for it. A lot of modern electroincs isn't up to the job , so you are going to have to source the same components that were commonplace 25 years ago....

    2. Re:So little change? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I used floppies more than I'll ever use flash.

      That's not saying much. Might this be because there was no hard drive at the time? For a long time, that was the only affordable way to store software and operating systems. Now, files are stored on hard drives, and you can just transfer files over the network, so there's not as much need for a portable storage medium.

      I'm thankful for the current media players, especially the compact portable ones. Radio is annoying as crap with ads and constantly recycled media, at least with portable media players, *I* can control what and when I can play the audio. The ability to record and distribute videos within a short time, low cost and low difficulties is nice too.

      I'm thankful for duplexing laser printers. I'm sorry, while the dot matrix units were nice, they only printed one side, printed incredibly crude pictures and were loud. It's nice to get rid of fan-fold paper too.

      Mail order was incredibly slow, now it is easier to find a certain item and pay for it and if you paid for it, you might see the item on the next business day.

    3. Re:So little change? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      I used floppies more than I'll ever use flash.

      Then, 5 years ago, I realized that my floppies were slower than my (adsl) web link.

      Now, I just punt stuff to my web site, and leave it there to pick up when I get to my destination.
      I figure that they chould have also shown a 1980 300bps modem vs a 2006 3Mbps modem. `

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    4. Re:So little change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With regards to the aircraft, you're a little off-base. Sure, some of the mechanical aspects of it will stay the same over the aircrafts' life time, but electronics get upgraded. Just look at the B-52 bomber; the airframe in that is close to 50 years old, but the USAF is still flying them as they get the avionics upgraded with modern technology...

    5. Re:So little change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The only supersonic airliner was Concorde - No longer in service.
      > Nobody has been to the moon either.

      > Yes we have this "cool" technology these days, but we are not putting it to good use.

      Hmm? I'd say that old tech migrated to the present extremely well. First-gen stuff that very few people ever got to use [did YOU get to go to the moon? no? neither did I :( ] ... now what was learned from those big products has trickled down into the things a billion people use every day.

      Not that TFA does very well describing it, though.

    6. Re:So little change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I used floppies more than I'll ever use flash

      That's funny, I see the use of flash memory wildly outpacing past use of floppies all around, without even really trying.

      Rare but nontrivial flash keychain use (walking patches and installers between computers; XP SP2 is like 200 meg. Openoffice and Java are big too.)

      Console savegame cards? Flash (8 meg per card for the PS2).

      Other people use it more than me. Digital camera? Flash. Cellphone stored numbers and ringtones? Flash (maybe?). The smaller-capacity mp3 players? Flash (and not just the latest ipod, the first Rio back in 97 or so used flash too).

    7. Re:So little change? by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      We still need more gadgets with a faux-wood finish though.

    8. Re:So little change? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The Spectrum doesn't keep its OS on disk, that's a completely unfair comparison. A better comparison would be waking your laptop from sleep mode, then your Spectrum would be booting from ROM and loading the program and your laptop would be booting from RAM and loading the program, and I can guarantee that the laptop would whoop up. And that's forgetting that the laptop does about 50,000 more things than the Spectrum... hell, your Spectrum doesn't even have enough CPU power to run a single low-speed USB port, and the laptop can do a dozen with no hit.

    9. Re:So little change? by masdog · · Score: 1

      Yes we have this "cool" technology these days, but we are not putting it to good use.

      Probably because we have people more concerned with being consumers instead of innovators.

  19. It's because... by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He said that we are turning into "a tchotchke society," rich in frivolous gadgets but poor in literacy rates, infant mortality, etc.

    That's because we can get brown people in distant countries to make our gadgets for us on the cheap. We can't do the same for health care or education. If the economic worm turned and those people weren't willing to work for so little, we'd find ourselves not only health-care-less but gadget-less as well! We are rich in shit, cheap crap which relies on the world's have-nots to remain cheap. A scheme this unbalanced can only last for so long.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
    1. Re:It's because... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      If the economic worm turned

      I submit that this is not if, but when. Already China is outsourcing manufacturing jobs to other countries because they can lower costs that way. As China's society becomes more affluent, the employers are coming under increasing pressure to deliver at past prices, so low-skill manufacturing jobs, like textiles and simple machine implements, are ending up in even lower-wage countries. Kind of interesting to watch, in a twisted way.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  20. 128 Bytes by DaveInAustin · · Score: 0

    The Atari 2600 has 128 bytes ~0.1k. How many of us could write anything with access to just 128 bytes of ram, Well, maybe you could write Pong.

    --
    --- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
    1. Re:128 Bytes by skurk · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the games were on cartridges with ROMs that could hold up to 24 kilobytes (IIRC). The 128 bytes of RAM was only for temporary data storage, like lives left, current score, level, player position, etc.

      --
      www.6502asm.com - Code 6502 assembly or.. DIE!!
    2. Re:128 Bytes by SpacePirate20X6 · · Score: 1

      It didn't make that big of a difference when you only had four colors per line on a 162x192 resolution. More RAM lets you have prettier graphics, and graphics won't make your gameplay any better. Two out of the three next-gen consoles will have 512MB of RAM, and no improvements to actual gameplay.

    3. Re:128 Bytes by IHSW · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but it was 1.19MHz and had a display screen of 190x160.

      Source

  21. Aah Yes... by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny
    My first boss was an early adopter of the cellphone. He used to like to call people from the men's room and talk to them while doing his business. Before that if you wanted to call someone from the men's room you had to have a line run, but the cellphone gave him the freedom to call anyone from any men's room and talk to them while taking a giant dump. That's progress!

    I also remember him being amazed at the performance of the first 486 laptop we got in. For a long time it was the most powerful computer in the company. It really is a pity that chain smoking and the probably toxic fumes of the environment we worked in got to him. The industry's really come a long way since those days and I think he would have enjoyed watching the progress. Not to mention smaller cellphones for the men's room...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Aah Yes... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I had one boss who had a telephone and line installed in his "executive" bathroom, which also had a shower and a tub. The entry was through his office.

      I know he didn't have a very happy home life, since he often slept there at the office. I felt sorry for him, even though he was a colossal jerk.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Aah Yes... by artifex2004 · · Score: 1
      He used to like to call people from the men's room and talk to them while doing his business.


      I remember when an executive came into a bathroom, and proceeded to enter the stall next to me while still chatting on his phone. About 5 seconds after he started doing his business, his formerly-animated conversation turned into, "Hello? Hello?" as the other party figured out what he was doing and hung up on him. :)

      I think it's incredibly rude to make or receive calls while using the toilet. It's a security risk, too, if you're in a public bathroom, and you're talking shop.
  22. It's not all benefits. by mrjb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Exactly. Try misplacing 25000 floppy disks.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:It's not all benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You only need to lose one if it's spanned :P

    2. Re:It's not all benefits. by SpacePirate20X6 · · Score: 1

      "Please insert disk 17349 of 25000..." That's just the additional fonts disk, right?

    3. Re:It's not all benefits. by gnud · · Score: 1

      It would be rather vexing to find that you'd misplaced the last one, after switching disks 24999 times :)

    4. Re:It's not all benefits. by turgid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Back in the mid-80's, in the days of 5.25" floppy disk and 8-bit microcomputers, one of my dad's colleagues taught an evening class in computing for the general public.

      I think they were using BBC micros with 5.25" floppy drives.

      Anyway, at the end of the first lesson, one of the ladies folded her floppy disk neatly in half and put it in her handbag.

    5. Re:It's not all benefits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Message upon inserting disk 24172: "CRC error on track 17 sector 6"

    6. Re:It's not all benefits. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Did he change the first lesson the next time he taught the class?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:It's not all benefits. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      STRONG BAD: The two warring factions of diskettes are floppy disks--
      {He shakes the 5¼" disk, emphasizing its floppiness.}
      STRONG BAD: --and hard disks.
      {He lifts an unlabeled 3½" floppy disk in his right hand.}
      STRONG BAD: I prefer {hides the 3½" disk} these big ones because they hold more memory, although you have to {crumples the 5¼" disk} fold them up to fit them into these new computers.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    8. Re:It's not all benefits. by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Go figure, one teacher we had for a "computer applications" class was going over the anatomy of a 3.5" floppy and asked if anyone had one she could use for show and tell. A guy gives it to her and she pushed the plate to show how the floppy drive accesses the disk, which seemed alright.

      Out of the blue,she takes it apart to show us the insides and didn't realize she had just destroyed someone else's floppy...I still cant forget the horrified look on this guys face when she did that. I heard he's working at McDonald's now...

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    9. Re:It's not all benefits. by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      Try finding a specific disk in a pile of 25,000 floppies. At least with compact flash you can let the computer search for the file(s) you need.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    10. Re:It's not all benefits. by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      That's just the additional fonts disk, right?

      Nope, printer driver for a daisy-wheel that just happens to work with the Spinwriter...

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    11. Re:It's not all benefits. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Don't know if it's still the case, but Sitt Ifrikens used to call the 3.5" ones "stiffies".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. Nostalgia by Maset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has been happening for a while. How about the techonolical changes from 1940 to 1970?

    Nostalgia is good, only to see how good we have it now and how much we have screwed it up.

    1. Re:Nostalgia by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Please forgive me for this correction.

      You meant to say "only to see how good we had it "THEN" and much we have screwed it up "NOW," right?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Nostalgia by Maset · · Score: 1

      Not really. We have progressed a lot, but have regressed a lot as well.

  24. Retrothing by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A much better source for this kind of stuff is the Retrothing Blog. Definitely a favorite of my RSS feed list.

    1. Re:Retrothing by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      I second Paul's comment. http://www.retrothing.com/ absolutely rocks. The site is a never-ending torrent of nifty gadgets from the past, mixed with a smattering of modern Retro stuff like hybrid Vespa scooters and reissues of PDP 8 computers.

    2. Re:Retrothing by benspen · · Score: 1

      Retrothing is great. There's also a book by one of the Retro Thing guys called Essential Retro that's worth checking out.

  25. Obligatory Futurama quote: by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Computers may be twice as fast now as they were in 1973, but your average voter is still just as drunk and stupid as ever."

    Joking aside, why is this news? Here, to save time I've got your next article right here:

    Six things to do instead of reading this non-story

    • post smart-ass comments on slashdot
    • download pornography
    • search Google images for pictures of cool stuff you remember...

    ...eh, this ain't getting any funnier. Best stop with three.

    1. Re:Obligatory Futurama quote: by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      Why can't you do all those things and this as well? I am...I mean (deniability is great), I would if I wanted to!

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    2. Re:Obligatory Futurama quote: by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Six things to do instead of reading this non-story
      post smart-ass comments on slashdot
      download pornography
      search Google images for pictures of cool stuff you remember..."


      If you have time try to have sex, read a book, buy a house and have normal kids.

      Oh right, none are possible today. Oh well.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  26. Funny thing though by Xcott+Craver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back then, when I pressed "record" on a tape recorder or the shutter button on a camera, it did what I wanted instantaneously.

    None of this goddamn 2-second delay, or booting into the OS for 30 seconds to figure out how to record from the microphone.

    Nowadays I am reluctant to buy any technology unless it does the basic things that technology used to do for me in the 1970s. There's no way I'd go back, of course, but I think one of the great failures of consumer electronics today is that much of it is incapable of basic features 30 years back---largely as a matter of priorities and crappy user interface design.

    Xcott

    1. Re:Funny thing though by mblase · · Score: 1

      Back then, when I pressed "record" on a tape recorder or the shutter button on a camera, it did what I wanted instantaneously. None of this goddamn 2-second delay, or booting into the OS for 30 seconds to figure out how to record from the microphone.

      The 2-second delay is normally a little thing called "autofocus". It's actually optional.

      Not sure why you're rebooting your computer just to copy an audio CD, though.

    2. Re:Funny thing though by thefirelane · · Score: 1
      >None of this goddamn 2-second delay

      That's because your priorities aren't what most people's are. Most cameras bought today are used for taking posed or landscape shots. neither requires speed. If that is an actual priority of yours, buy a Nikon DSLR and the problem goes away. If that isn't really a priority, stop complaining about tradeoffs, that's why they're called tradeoffs.

    3. Re:Funny thing though by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some of it's limitations. You CAN buy a digital camera that doesn't have any 2-second pauses - I have one. But it'll cost - mine is a digital SLR, and it really is a worthy replacement for my old film SLR because it works just as well (I resisted the move to digital till this year due to the lack of affordable digital SLRs and the many drawbacks of digital photography, namely things like your 2-second wait). My Nikon D70 is ready as soon as I flip the switch, just like my old film Nikon.

    4. Re:Funny thing though by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've obviously never used anything powered by a set of vacuum tubes. A Tube-Powered TV used to take several minutes to "warm up".

      Likewise, I'll agree that modern digital cameras do suck in terms of delays, but this is actually a necessity of the feature that allows you to see the live preview. Get rid of the live preview, and you get near-instantaneous shutter-releases. The same obviously applies to all DSLRs as well -- a modern DSLR can easily surpass old old film SLRs in terms of frames per second, simply because there's no film to advance.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Funny thing though by westlake · · Score: 1
      Back then, when I pressed "record" on a tape recorder or the shutter button on a camera, it did what I wanted instantaneously.

      and it would be days before the negatives and prints came back from the developer.

      perhaps a minute or two for a Polaroid. Unless you were skilled in photo lab work with toxic chemicals, enlargers and such like, you would not be doing any editing.

    6. Re:Funny thing though by Malor · · Score: 1

      As far as cameras go, they've figured that out in some cases, although you do have to shop some. I have a Casio Exilim EX-Z750, and it's less than a second from power-on to being ready to shoot... and that includes time to extend the lens. It's ready well before I am.

      A film camera might be just a hair faster, but I can't imagine missing a shot because the 750 was too slow. And I get the result almost instantly, so I know if I need to take more pictures.

      THere are definitely slow digital cameras out there... my mother has one, and she dislikes it very much. But they're not all like that.

    7. Re:Funny thing though by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      The 2-second delay is normally a little thing called "autofocus".

      Nope. That shutter delay with point-and-shoot digital cameras is due to the fact that the CCD is forced to do double-duty to get the live preview on the LCD viewfinder. When you hit the shutter release, it needs to switch modes, and get ready to capture shutter-speed's worth of incoming light.

      DSLRs have autofocus as well, and when you press the shutter release, there's no lag. It just takes the picture, because you weren't already using the CCD to feed an LCD so you can compose the shot.

      P&S cameras are getting better in this regard, however. But the lag that's there, isn't there because of autofocus.

    8. Re:Funny thing though by swillden · · Score: 1

      DSLRs have autofocus as well, and when you press the shutter release, there's no lag.

      If you just press the shutter release on a DSLR, you'll get an out-of-focus picture. Even with good lenses that have fast autofocusing mechanics in them, it takes non-zero time to focus. If you just push the shutter release, every DSLR I'm familiar with will assume that you know what you're doing and simply shoot, not waiting for the focus ring to spin into position.

      If you want your shots to be in focus with a DSLR (and with most of the better point-and-shoot digital cameras as well), you should press the shutter release button halfway, let the camera focus, then press it the rest of the way. You'll find that EVR cameras, where the CCD feeds the electronic viewfinders, will also have no lag if you pre-focus them. I don't know for sure, but I doubt the lag you experience has anything to do with switching the usage of the CCD; I think it's just slow focusing, and the assumption that the operator doesn't know enough to pre-focus, and doesn't really want an out-of-focus shot (reasonable assumptions for point-and-shoot cameras).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Funny thing though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Nikon D70 is ready as soon as I flip the switch, just like my old film Nikon.

      Fine. Now how about fill flash, TTL-OTF? Or affordable lenses that start at f=1,8 or f=2,8?

    10. Re:Funny thing though by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      >Back then, when I pressed "record" on a tape recorder or the shutter button on a camera, it did what I wanted instantaneously.

      Not only that but tape recorders usually had STEREO microphone inputs. Quite why modern soundcards all come with a MONO inpout is beyond me. You can always reduce stereo to mono but without a stereo input you can only record in stereo by first using an external mixer to feed the (hopefully) stereo line in.

      Ah the march of progress... 2006 and we've gone back to mono recording.

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    11. Re:Funny thing though by masdog · · Score: 1

      If you just press the shutter release on a DSLR, you'll get an out-of-focus picture. Even with good lenses that have fast autofocusing mechanics in them, it takes non-zero time to focus. If you just push the shutter release, every DSLR I'm familiar with will assume that you know what you're doing and simply shoot, not waiting for the focus ring to spin into position.

      That depends on how you configure your DSLR. Some cameras, mainly the "prosumer" and pro models, allow you to remap the autofocus to a different control (this function is available on the Rebel XT and the D70, I believe). I have my 20D and XT setup to use the * key for autofocus, so when I push the shutter button, I get a picture instantly.

    12. Re:Funny thing though by masdog · · Score: 1

      I use a Canon, you insensitive clod!!

    13. Re:Funny thing though by swillden · · Score: 1

      I have my 20D and XT setup to use the * key for autofocus, so when I push the shutter button, I get a picture instantly.

      That's an interesting idea. You don't use exposure lock, I guess? Or do you remap that somewhere else? I could see shifting it over to, say, the WB button.

      On my Rebel XT (BTW, why did you buy both -- the 20D and XT don't seem sufficiently different to warrant owning both), I find the default behavior to be inconsistent. Most of the time when I just press the shutter release, it focuses than snaps the shot, in a half second or so, but sometimes it just shoots and gets an out-of-focus shot. The only consistent factor seems to be the user -- if my wife is trying to take a picture, it's out of focus. But then I nearly always prefocus anyway.

      If you're a Linux user, do you have any software recommendations?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Funny thing though by masdog · · Score: 1

      You don't use exposure lock, I guess? Or do you remap that somewhere else? I could see shifting it over to, say, the WB button.

      Nope. I'm usually shooting in manual mode.

      (BTW, why did you buy both -- the 20D and XT don't seem sufficiently different to warrant owning both)

      Because when I initially bought the XT, I wasn't planning on doing a lot of sports photography. When I got into that pretty heavily, I found that the XT wasn't up to the task.

      If you're a Linux user, do you have any software recommendations?

      Can't help you there. I'm a Windows user.

  27. Things are shrinking at a fast pace...Cold Water. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Holy cow!! Going by this trend, things are going to be very very small in the future."

    Nanoporn.

  28. Perhaps if we applied the free-market... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that we have in consumer electronics to health and education, it might not just be the tchotchkes that get more and more features as they get cheaper and cheaper. If the hyper-regulated monopolies and enforced status quo of the education and health non-markets were applied to consumer electronics, we wouldn't have most of what we take for granted.

    1. Re:Perhaps if we applied the free-market... by westlake · · Score: 1
      Perhaps if we applied the free-market...that we have in consumer electronics to health and education, it might not just be the tchotchkes that get more and more features as they get cheaper and cheaper

      The rules of the market do apply.

      The problem is that the arts, health and education, are essentially craft work, skilled labor. There are limits to what you can achieve through mass production, there are limits to recruitment when the pay is minimum wage.

  29. Not quite a fair comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously we have bigger capacity storage now than in the '80s, but... the article compares a cheapo floppy disk to a $480 flash card. These are not equivalent technologies.

    1. Re:Not quite a fair comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Obviously we have bigger capacity storage now than in the '80s, but... the article compares a cheapo floppy
      > disk to a $480 flash card. These are not equivalent technologies.

      No, they're not in equivalent price brackets, but they fill equivalent roles - small, removable nonvolatile storage media for transporting data.

      Bear in mind that the 8GB flash card comes out to about $.06 per MB, much much cheaper than the equivalent floppy storage! You can get a 64MB CF card for about $8.00 now, which costs as much as 8-16 floppies but holds 64 times as much.

    2. Re:Not quite a fair comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. They compared it to 25000 floppies. Let me tell you that 25000 floppies in that day cost a hell of a lot more than $480! Plus it would take up far more space and attempting to read them all, you'd probably still be swapping disks to this day.

    3. Re:Not quite a fair comparison by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I'd add that floppies are only cheap now, but when the 5.25 inch disk appeared it was so hideously expensive it was actually worth paying $15 (in 80's money) for a disk notcher* so you could flip them over and use both sides.

      url:http://8bit.dk/temp/sale_pic/disk_notcher.jpg

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    4. Re:Not quite a fair comparison by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      A disk notcher? You silly man, you could have achieved the same effect with three cuts with a sharp knife. That's what I did anyway

      And yes, they were hideously expensive. The cheapest floppies I could get in 1984 were 100 Dutch guilders (45 EURO) for a box of 10 good quality 3M disks. A real bargain compared to buying them a piece (as most shops did). Then you also had the Verbatim floppies, that eh, were not verbatim at all. Half of them failed within a 2 month period. I still refuse to buy anything made by Verbatim, even after all those years.

    5. Re:Not quite a fair comparison by dohnut · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we just used scissors. Didn't even make it square, just cut a little 'V' into the opposite side. Don't think I ever made a coaster -- you know what I mean. :P

      --
      Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
    6. Re:Not quite a fair comparison by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      You silly man, you could have achieved the same effect with three cuts with a sharp knife.

      Silly? Say that when you've cut notches in 200 disks by hand in one sitting. Three cuts sound trivial, but 600 is painful (and I understand 1000 cuts causes death).

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  30. In the embedded world, we still do by kt0157 · · Score: 1

    There are some of us out there who write for 128 bytes. We even write in C. Take a look at www.microchip.com. Oh, and that mouse you're using, that's got 128 bytes of RAM in it.

    K.

  31. What's really fun... by mblase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is the anachronisms you get in "near future" movies and TV shows of the recent past. I still smirk whenever I remember RoboCop walking through a room of reel-to-reel data storage machines before plugging himself into a crime database, or Misato calling NERV headquarters on a bulky corded car phone.

    The thing about near-future cinema is they always spend more time thinking about the big technology changes than the little ones.

    1. Re:What's really fun... by Wiseleo · · Score: 1

      On the other hand...

      If they portrayed using a Razor or an HTC Universal as a car phone interacting wirelessly with the vehicle through Bluetooth - would you have believed them?

      Corded car phones were believable.

      Same would be with data reels. A modern datacenter is a sea of green LEDs with either standard 3U 14-disk enclosures or even having all that green goodness hidden behind Tier1 manufacturer logos on large bezels. The arrays take up far less space than the data reel machines did and don't look anywhere near as impressive, especially when enclosed in typical Sun or EMC cabinets. We are used to this to the point of taking it for granted, but explaining the concept of a RAID enclosure to moviegoers would be an interesting thing to try. ;-)

      Datareels were believable. They got this point right with Terminator 3 - the charecter realized that they are not in a real datacenter.

      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov
      Find me on Quora :)
    2. Re:What's really fun... by mblase · · Score: 1

      On the other hand... If they portrayed using a Razor or an HTC Universal as a car phone interacting wirelessly with the vehicle through Bluetooth - would you have believed them? Corded car phones were believable.

      Oh, don't think so hard about it. Evangelions are far less believable than cordless portable phones; they used cordless communicators in "Star Trek" back in the '60s.

      Fact is, they simply didn't imagine such a thing would be commonplace by 2015. Or else they didn't put any thought toward the question at all. Which is fine, I'm not blaming them; it's just funny in hindsight that the major leaps in technology haven't or won't happen by the year the movie is set, while the minor leaps were all overlooked.

    3. Re:What's really fun... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      The thing about near-future cinema is they always spend more time thinking about the big technology changes than the little ones.

      Two possible reasons:

      1) A future object has to look vaguely like its current equivalent, otherwise it takes time to explain what it is to an audience. Put it this way: to a 1950's audience, a computer looked like a room full of tubes with flashing lights and punch tape everywhere. By that standard, they wouldn't look at a MacMini* and immediately see a computer; it would need to be explained, and there isn't time in a feature film to introduce every little gizmo (or space to have big signs on everything).

      2) Little detailed props for close up work can take as long to make as large sets. Which is cheaper: hiring someone to design and build (for example) a futuristic keyboard from scratch to sit on a desk, or taking an existing keyboard and hiring a guy with a jigsaw to cut a hole in a desk for it and throw a bit of putty around the sides to make it look sexy? (Now you know why nearly every movie computer room has big consoles.) Of course, this reason doesn't apply to animation, so here's my alternate hypothesis to the Evangelion puzzle: cell phones near the head were found to be dangerous after all.

      Throw in laziness, lack of inspiration and simple forgetfulness (its easy to forget one item out of thousands), and you're pretty sure to find something out of place in almost any film if you look hard enough.

      *Not pushing a brand bias, just exploiting the fact that the Mini is basically a tiny, featureless white half-cube that looks entirely unlike any sci-fi prediction of what an early 21st century computer should look like.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    4. Re:What's really fun... by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Speaking about cheap sci-fi props: why not just re-use existing stuff that looks nice enough, say HP cartridge holders, as subtle decoration of the set:

      http://fusionanomaly.net/starwarsphantommenacehpin kjetcartridges.jpg

      (from: http://fusionanomaly.net/hp.html )

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    5. Re:What's really fun... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      If you're into spotting old gadgets reused, you can't go past Dr Who (not the newer series). Army surplus everywhere in the earlier seasons, lots of electronic junk in the later shows; I almost used to weep seeing the amazing stuff that got torn to bits and called a temporal-whatsit or doohickey-polarizer just to provide a crisis to solve.

      And did they really think no one would notice the Dalek's only means of interacting with the world was with a plunger? No wonder they just exterminated everything, it would be a huge time saver.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    6. Re:What's really fun... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      A future object has to look vaguely like its current equivalent, otherwise it takes time to explain what it is to an audience.

      When they bother... WTF is up with the three seashells?!!?!

    7. Re:What's really fun... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      It was a confusing situation designed to leave the audience comically relieved.

      http://www.poopreport.com/Ask/demolition_man.html

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    8. Re:What's really fun... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      * <--- Joke
                |
                |
                | 10m
                |
                |
      * <--- Your head.

      I knew that, it was just too hard to pass up. ;)

    9. Re:What's really fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A future object has to look vaguely like its current equivalent, otherwise it takes time to explain what it is to an audience.

      One of the mid-season Cowboy Bebop episodes plays with this idea. It's the flashback episode explaining Faye's background and the doctor quizzes her on what various items are in the room. Naturally, she mis-identifies all of the items.

    10. Re:What's really fun... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      * --- Your brow
                |
                |
                | 10m
                |
                |
      * --- Joke.

      And admittedly,

      * --- Joke (that's actually funny)
                |
                |
                | 10m
                |
                |
      * --- Joke.

      Considering the relative obscurity of the line, I thought you'd have to know the reference. I thought you'd find the link more bizzare than informative.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  32. History should be written by those who remember it by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the end of the 80s the most popular removable storage media was the 5 1/4 inch diskette, capable of storing 360 KB (later 1200 KB). If you compare that to a big compact flash card of today, you could store close to 25 000 diskettes on ONE 8GB CompactFlash card

    At the end of the 80's, the most popular removable storage media was the 3.5" floppy. They actually came out in the early to mid 80's. They were also around a dollar each, as opposed to the $480 for the SanDisk 8GB CompactFlash.

    Geez Louise! Talk about comparing apples to kumquats!

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  33. Oblig. Futurama by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

    "What's the matter, Amy? Did you swallow your cellphone again?" -Leela

  34. Fat Techies! by graystar · · Score: 4, Funny

    No wonder techies are getting fatter these days. In the past at least carrying 25000 disks and a mobile phone would be equivalent to a decent gym session. Now all you do is carry a key ring and phone smaller than your big mac you had at lunch!

    --
    -- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
    1. Re:Fat Techies! by Vyvyan+Basterd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, Big Macs are getting smaller too! Back when I was 8, I got more full from one than I do now.

    2. Re:Fat Techies! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Weird. Back when I was thirteen I could scarf a double big mac, fries and drink, supersized and be wanting more. Now a pair of egg mcmuffins means I don't have to eat for the rest of the day. I wouldn't even want to attempt the big mac.

    3. Re:Fat Techies! by untouchableForce · · Score: 1

      I suppose it would be useless to point out that very few people had the use for 8 GBs of data.... although truthfully not that many people have 8 GB of data now... but lots of people have hundreds of gigabytes of multimedia.

      --
      Moderation is not supposed to be used as an indicator of agreement.
  35. As Progress is made Degression occurs by Khyber · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And if You'll remember back in the days, progress meant "better, faster, stronger, superior." Let's take a comparison of the Ford Model T or Model A, and compare to a Ford Ranger or Taurus (Yes I mentioned a truck in a list of general cars, you'll soon find otu why.) Both the model T and model As were lighter, less powerful, did their job, and because of them, new laws that made no sense were introduced. (A man must walk ahead of a driving lady with a lantern to signal she was coming) as cars got faster and more dangerous, we had the laws of speed limits introduced (NOT a bad thing, guaranteed, but still...) and eventually we had laws for more standards (when most of the problems being caused generally were at the fault of the people not doing the one thing they should do - learn about their property, what it does, how it does it, and any possible problems that may be encountered in the usage of the product.) In my opinion, no matter how far we achieve progress, an equal amount of regression is created that directly counteracts the point of progression. In the USA - we create progressive new technology (stem-cell research, more efficient internal combustion engines, new progress considering the 100x more positive uses of marijuana and homoepathy) and we get regressive, restrictive, draconian laws for things like that that actually limit our potential to benefit and prosper from these new technologies. Vinyl>casette>CD>DVD>MP3 is probably the best example I can provide of sugh laws coming into effect for new technologies. Instea of it being used for the best - it's labeled as the worst and laws are put into place to restrict it's usage. What a contradictory and paradoxical world we live in...

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:As Progress is made Degression occurs by Manchot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You had me until you mentioned homeopathy. Homeopathy is pseudoscience, and has been thoroughly refuted. Any benefits that anyone claims to get from it is just a placebo effect.

    2. Re:As Progress is made Degression occurs by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You're full of it. Homeopathy has been in use practically since the dawn of man. Oh, and for further proof - guess where all those wonder chemicals that make you better come from? Usually, straight from nature, when some guy from a pharm corp notices that some guy in the jungle is using a plant to treat something wrong with a person - WITH SUCCESS. Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food. Homeopathy is NOT bullshit. Anyone that says otherwise doesn't have a fucking clue about how more than half of our refined medicines were discovered.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:As Progress is made Degression occurs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Actually, he mentioned homoepathy. It's like some kind of mental power that helps you recognise gay people or something.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  36. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your point is still valid, but I don't know who the hell would pay $480 for an 8gb CF card, when you can get it for about $150 here: http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=20201483 9&adid=17662&adid=17662 .

  37. You can do it! by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Exactly. Try misplacing 25000 floppy disks.

    I'm sure it's possible, Enron lost a hundred or so boxes of documents.

  38. Don't worry about medical insurance by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I'd not worry about medical insurance. It's still considered a luxury (Insurance for medical attention considered a luxury while CAR [non-life critical] insurance is now not almost 100% mandatory BY LAW and YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT.) Hello? Can we say FORCED CONSUMERISM? Since when did the states or federal government decide that we're LEGALLY REQUIRED TO GIVE MONEY TO A *BUSINESS?* Last I checked, if the gov't required anything, THEY PROVIDED FOR IT OUT OF OUR TAX MONEY (Until the '60s at least - that's what my 1910 born grandfather remembers - if Uncle Sam required you to have it, Uncle Sam provided it for you out of tax money, until around the 60s)

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Don't worry about medical insurance by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful
      CAR insurance is now not almost 100% mandatory BY LAW and YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT.) Hello? Can we say FORCED CONSUMERISM?

      Take the bus.

    2. Re:Don't worry about medical insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My taypayer dollars are going to subsidize the road that your whiny ass drives on.

    3. Re:Don't worry about medical insurance by don.pratt · · Score: 1
      Tell that to the jerk who made an illegal U-turn in front of me while I was going 55+. My car, a Honda del Sol (small car) is now totaled. His truck, a full-size Dodge Ram, was damaged but probably repairable. At the accident scene, he showed proof of insurance to the police officer. Too bad for me it wasn't his insurance.

      Your medical insurance is there to protect YOU. Your car insurance is there to protect ME. That's why the gummint mandates car insurance but not health insurance.

  39. Wow,what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now-BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We were happy, and we had to walk three miles, uphill, through snow to get them too! "

    Lucky you. I was so glad when snow was invented.

  40. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    I don't know that it was the most popular, though it was certainly available. I left high-school with boxes upon boxes of 5.25" floppy disks, but not very many 3.5" floppies. Remember, two of the most widely deployed computer systems of the era (at least in the US), the Apple ][ and the Commodore 64, primarily used 5.25" floppies. Factoid: The Commodore 64 was the most widely produced single computer model ever.

  41. Lookout, spelling police! by xx01dk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What is this? I hope this site was translated from another language...

    "and even though many of the old games still is very enjoyable"

    Sorry to troll, but really!

    --
    There is simply too much glass..
    1. Re:Lookout, spelling police! by The_DoubleU · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Shut up you idiot!

      Did you check the TLD in the URL? http://gadgets.fosfor.se/
      SE = Sweden.
      You would wish that your Swedish is as good as their English.

      PS. Future spelling Nazies, I'm Dutch.

      --
      What power has law where only money rules.
    2. Re:Lookout, spelling police! by xx01dk · · Score: 1

      Point taken. And you're probably right. I withdraw my comment.

      --
      There is simply too much glass..
  42. Re:History should be written by those who remember by fishbowl · · Score: 1


    Well into the 1990's, my most cost effective backup medium in dollars per megabyte was 5.25 inch diskettes.

    I remember waiting in vain for Zip media to reach the dollar-per-unit price point, where it could have dominated the removable storage market for a while. Instead, we were stuck with floppies for another decade. There are *still* many situations where floppies are required, although cheap CDR and now cheap flash RAM is starting to fix that problem.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  43. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At a dollar each, it would cost you $25,000 to put that same 8GB on floppies - quite a bit more than $480! Never mind the inconvenience.

    For storage that you can carry in your shirt pocket, this comparison would be spot-on if they had chosen 3.5" disks instead. It still shows pretty well how the convenience has increased and the price per MB has dropped dramatically.

  44. Worst. Slashvertisement. Ever. by RyatNrrd · · Score: 1
    This article took all of what, 5 minutes using Google Image Search to throw together? Brilliant!

    Don't forget it also would have taken a minute or two of reading emails from clients who wanted their gadgets marketed. Quality stuff.

  45. Some things I remember... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    * Atari 2600
    * Home version of Pac Man arcade machine
    * TRS-80 Color Computer 2 with thermal printer and a tape cassette drive
    * Cassette taping my favorite TV shows, bet the MPAA and RIAA would have been after my arse for audio recording Night Rider, MASH, and Tales of the Golden Monkey on cassette as a kid. Also had a sore arm from holding the casette recorder to the TV speaker. >_>
    * First remote controlled 4-wheel drive truck. I promptly tore that open and cut all the wires to try and figure out how it worked. Never saw anything remote controlled again after my father came home and I had a sore arse.
    * Merline game, the red phone like thing.
    * That Dungeons and Dragons game where you had these little metal figures on an electronic game board and as you moved the dragon moved towards you and you placed wall blocks to where you bumped in to walls.

    You know, the more I think about this stuff the more I remembered an old dream and I think I just realized what that dream symbolized. Walks down memory lane can be fun and enlightening.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  46. And yet, amazingly... by ImprovGuy · · Score: 1
    ...PCs today still ship with floppy drives. I know people who will tell me, with a straight face no less, that there are times that having a 3.5 floppy drive is handy.

    And don't tell me about how you can still boot your OS off of a floppy. If you can't boot from a USB stick (assuming your computer doesn't have an optical drive), go complain to whoever writes your OS.

    20+ year old technology. Honestly.

    1. Re:And yet, amazingly... by toddestan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...PCs today still ship with floppy drives. I know people who will tell me, with a straight face no less, that there are times that having a 3.5 floppy drive is handy.

      Maybe because they DO come in handy every once and a while? Though I do admit, I very rarely use the floppy drive on my home machine.

    2. Re:And yet, amazingly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a PC company and I havent seen a PC ship with a floppy drive in 2 years unless its special ordered. There just simply isnt a need for them anymore unless you work at a business or something that has old DOS programs.

    3. Re:And yet, amazingly... by evilviper · · Score: 0, Troll
      Maybe because they DO come in handy every once and a while?

      For what? If you've got some boot floppies you still use, grab a copy of isolinux (syslinux) and you can put all the images on a single CD, which will boot on any system made in the past 10 years.

      I still keep a couple old systems (10+ years, non-bootable CD-ROMs) around, but I find it's much easier and faster to pull out the hard drives, and plug them into a modern system for OS (re)installation. Everything else just goes over the network.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:And yet, amazingly... by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you can't boot from a USB stick (assuming your computer doesn't have an optical drive), go complain to whoever writes your OS.
      You misspelt BIOS :)

      Also having a floppy drive is more useful than having to incorporate driver disks onto a CD before installation of an operating system. There are times when having a floppy is handy - those people who say that to you with a straight face are probably just considering more factors than yourself.

      I still have a system on site with a 5 1/4 inch floppy for the purposes of being able to read old disks as required.

    5. Re:And yet, amazingly... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      can put all the images on a single CD, which will boot on any system made in the past 10 years.
      Unless of course it has a RAID controller or one of several other bits of hardware where you want to load extra drivers supplied by the manufacturer just after boot time.

      As for the other point - it takes less time to plug a floppy in than it does to move a drive about or burn a CDROM that pretends it is a driver floppy disk.

      Speaking as someone who looks after a lot of systems with neither floppy or CDROM drives the floppy disk is the one that is missed the most during setup.

    6. Re:And yet, amazingly... by evilviper · · Score: 0, Troll
      where you want to load extra drivers supplied by the manufacturer just after boot time.

      Home users aren't too likely to use a RAID controller, and servers are unlikely to be installed from the standard disc. Even small companies slipstream their Windows CD, and add any extra patches and drivers they want before installing it on a single machine. It's quite easy.

      As for the other point - it takes less time to plug a floppy in than it does to move a drive about or burn a CDROM that pretends it is a driver floppy disk.

      It takes less time to burn and boot from a CD than it does to write and boot from a floppy. Floppies are so damn slow, not to mention it'll be 100% perfect on the CD every time, and a previously used floppy will have CRC errors half the time...

      Besides, I can't remember the last time I got any products with a floppy. Companies have simply switched to CDs for everything.

      Moving a drive may take some time... or not. Hard drive caddies make things quite fast. My firewall/router is also trivial to move, as it's just a CF disk in a front drive bay.

      the floppy disk is the one that is missed the most during setup.

      You haven't given any reasons why.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:And yet, amazingly... by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      Up until a short while ago I helped run/maintain a few large compute clusters. Once the systems were up (or the manufacturer did what we said) the bios set to pxe boot was the easiest. with an invalid MBR and they updated to the new image or did thier initial instal.

      Barring that, it was far easier to use floppies. Didn't need to turn on several hundred, place the disks in, close the thing, and then reboot - you could push in all the disks and reboot. Not to mention that floppy drives are signifigantly cheaper than cd-roms - especially useful when you are looking at purchasing hundreds or thousands of computers. The floppies tended to work quicker too, again something that matters when you get to large enough intallation.

      For indivdual workstation installs I agree, but there is a HUGE area of the world outside of that. You know, many of us aren't as stupid as you seem to think. But hey - this (hubris) is what slashdot is all about right?

      Plus, at home, for somethings the floppy is just more reliable. I have computers both with and without them. There are times I wish mine without them had one. Yes, it's rare, and yes there is always a workaround, but that doesn't negate that sometimes it' still the easiest solution.

      Just because something *can* be done doesn't mean it is the best solution - nor does old mean it is bad either. We *could* have booted several hundred machines from a keyring USB flash device.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    8. Re:And yet, amazingly... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
      You haven't given any reasons why.
      In very simple terms - floppy disks are still useful because people still use them. If you don't like the reasons (eg. firmware updates, BIOS updates, driver disks, virus definitions, virus fix, restore disk, boot floppies, sneakernet) or they are outside the realm of your experience it does not mean that other people are not using them occasionally.
    9. Re:And yet, amazingly... by EcoPark · · Score: 1

      All I know is that the junk in my cupboard keeps changing. Long ago I used to have a couple of spare 5.25 360kb Floppy drives in my cupboard. After a while that changed to 10Mb harddrives and 3.25 floppy drives. Soon, that changed to 360Mb drives, then quad-speed CD-roms and 10Gb Drives. At the moment it's 80Gb Drives and CD-writers. Soon it will probably be spare DVD-writers. That sucks. I always keep them around just in case, but since they became cd-roms, they've just been sitting there in my cupboard gathering dust and waiting to be upgraded by the next bunch of obsolete hardware. When it was floppy drives, I would actually use them on new machines or occasionally dismantle them and use parts for repairs or replacement of other floppy drives. They used to rock, except when installing a 25 disk application and disk 16 or 21 or even 25 was fscked.It never was the first floppy that got corrupted.

    10. Re:And yet, amazingly... by miro+f · · Score: 1

      I've heard the same thing for years, but I have failed to hear a single good reason why floppies are useful. My old PC I only just found out the floppy drive doesn't work (and presumably never worked. In fact, it wasn't even plugged in. After plugging it in, it still didn't work, however), and it's about three years old.

      The only reason I needed a floppy drive was because of some extremely ancient equipment (a CRO) at university.

      honestly, networks, CDs and USB thumb drives have completely obsoleted floppy drives, and there is no reason at all to have one. The computer I'm currently writing on does not have a floppy drive and I haven't felt its loss.

      It's a format that just needs to die already

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    11. Re:And yet, amazingly... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Didn't need to turn on several hundred, place the disks in, close the thing, and then reboot - you could push in all the disks and reboot.

      No need to boot-up the systems to open the CD tray; That's what a paperclips are for... At power-on, the tray will close itself, and you're set. Not to mention that slot-loading CD/DVD drives are just as cheap, and don't have that problem.

      Not to mention that floppy drives are signifigantly cheaper than cd-roms

      True, floppy drives are about 50% cheaper, but if the kind of price difference is an issue, you'd just stick with PXE (or, yes, possibly USB bootable drives).

      Plus, at home, for somethings the floppy is just more reliable.

      What things? Saying "oh yes they are!" isn't very convincing. I keep asking, and still get no good answers.

      Just because something *can* be done doesn't mean it is the best solution

      No, but in this case, because of numerous limitations of floppies, it is.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  47. Don't Judge a Book By it's Cover by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    Worst... brothel... ever....

    Remember -- that was the prevailing fashion of the time -- but just because they dressed up conservatively (by today's standards) doesn't mean that they couldn't dance up a storm when you got them in the mood.
    (( suggestion: wait 30 seconds before giving up on the video ))

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  48. MOD ACOTT +1,000,000 INSIGHTFUL by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Compare the cell phones from the '80s and early '90s to cell phones of today. +5 second LAG to see a number I just pressed FINALLY show up on a screen? +5 second lag to hit the call button and seeing the phone LCD switch over to say "calling/dialing" and another ten seconds to hear a dialtone? I got faster response from my old Nokia phone. People developing technology today have absolutely no fucking clue, period, and this kind of gap does far more than prove it.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:MOD ACOTT +1,000,000 INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I got faster response from my old Nokia phone.
      > People developing technology today have absolutely no fucking clue, period,
      > and this kind of gap does far more than prove it.

      You know, I think computers and GUIs are partly to blame for this situation. It used to be that software was designed within some kind of existing metaphor to make it more 'intuitive.' The desktop metaphor, windows as sheets of paper, controls acting like physical controls, etc. were all intended to make the machine respond to the user's needs.

      Somewhere along the way, the computer became its own metaphor, and software was then designed to resemble *other software*. Controls in software became either like nothing anyone had seen before, or were far too literal representations of physical devices (Quicktime Player, anyone?). We got used to *waiting* for the computer to boot up, and to respond to our actions, and grew more blind to the cracks in the facade. Then we started putting that fractured computer interface onto the very devices that inspired it.

      Now we have devices being designed by a generation of engineers who never saw or used any of that simple stuff, and take it for granted that the more complex the thing is, the more powerful it must be. Sad, really... Raskin must be spinning in his grave.

  49. Hey there, don't go forcing consumerism. by ambrosen · · Score: 1

    The OP can walk for free.

  50. and in those days by bobamu · · Score: 2, Funny

    geeks would lust after a cluster of them they could read beowulf to

  51. times have changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As a nine years old it was damn hard to find out to "use rubber".

    These days, nine year olds can just get on the internet, where supposedly millions of people would offer to help.

  52. Re:May 7: Prostitute Schedule @ MBOT in San Franci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woulda been better in comment above re: Worst... brothel... ever....

    If you gonna spam, use some style :P

  53. There are some things I miss from way back by gone.fishing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I already know some of you will just think I'm an old fart fondly remembering a simpler time and confuse it for a better time but that really isn't what I'm trying to do here.

    I liked the styling risks that some companies took back then. I get the sense that it was easier to take risks with consumer products back then.

    My favorite car radio of all times was the Sanyo Tachard radio. It was shaped like a tachometer and locked with a key so that you could remove it. There were a couple of different models, I think one was 8 watts and the other was 32 watts. For the day, the sound quality was excellent and it made the inside of my Fiat 850 Spyder look almost space age.

    RCA made a bedroom stereo that looked like an astronaut's helmet! When you lifted the face shield, the eyes were the controls, the nose the frequency dial, and the mouth was the eight-track deck.

    Initial technology was always interesting too:

    The VIC-20 from Comodore was an exceptional started computer that didn't cost an arm and a leg. It ran a form of basic that was fun to learn and use. It really was a toy and could be used to play games.

    The Sinclair ZX-80 was an ultimate cheap computer. In many ways it was terrible (especially the keyboard) but it represented a starting point for so many inventive people to perform exparaments and modifications that I have to say it did a lot for the hobby computer industry and probably launched more people into computer related careers than anything else ever has.

    Sometimes what was right and what was commercially successful were in two different worlds.

    The eight-track won out over the cassette at first, despite the fact that it was more complex and lower quality. It litterally took a decade for people to wake up!

    Sony Betamax was hands down better than VHS. It was visibly superior and actually less complex.

    Communications technology was always a big deal.

    My grandfather was a big baseball fan. For Christmas one year he was given a transistor AM radio with one of those really lousy ear-pieces. From April through October it was almost welded to his ear. It was that big a part of his life, I would even call it a life-changing thing for him. He no longer had to miss the game no matter where he went.

    My friend was the first on the block to get color TV. I was so jealous! One night we watched a cop show on his TV and the flashing lights were blue - which made no sense to me because where I was from all cop cars, fire trucks, and ambulances had red lights. It really confused me.

    My hometown was fairly small and dial phone technology came late. I was able to pick up the phone and tell Sarah, the operator that I wanted to talk to my mom and she would actually track her down or if she couldn't she would offer to call one of my grandparents for me! This is one place where technology may actually have been a hinderance for small towns. Today, the operator is likely in a different time-zone and has no knowlege of your town.

    My dad was a volinteer fireman and we had a "fire phone" in our home for years. If the phone rang steady, you picked up the phone and listened and you would hear the actual person reporting the fire or, in the event of a "second alarm" or "mutual aid" call a dispatcher. Us kids were taught to always listen if dad was home or to try to ignore the call if he wasn't (we always listened). Most of the cafes and bars in town were also wired into the fire phone system so that they could pass the word to their fire-fighting customers. I think today's system is far superior to the old solution but not nearly as much fun.

    My '64 Buick had a speed buzzer and auto-dimming headlights. Features I loved. I would almost rather have the buzzer than cruise control today. I really wish my truck had auto-dimming headlights. I am really glad that it corners better and stops faster than my '64 Buick did though. Believe it or not, my 2000 Dodge 5.2L RAM gets about the same MPG as my '64 Buick did and, the '64 Buick had a 401 CID "Wildcat 445" engine and a 4bbl carb!

    1. Re:There are some things I miss from way back by __aabwba5127 · · Score: 0

      I might sound like an ass but if I were to stumble in the 60s or 70s through some time travelling device/portal/wormhole/whatever with my ipod, my laptop and a stack of games and cds and hard drives I wonder if I might not be looked at as a demi-god. A good point on old hardware though is that it has a freaking ON button. No modern OS seems to support such a simple feature. And Vista ain'T gonna help on my aging but still fine hardware.

  54. Booting isn't an OS function by localroger · · Score: 1
    If you can't boot from a USB stick (assuming your computer doesn't have an optical drive), go complain to whoever writes your OS.

    Your OS isn't on the machine until it's booted. Booting from a USB stick is a BIOS function, and the reason it's screwed up to expect that is that the USB interface is 10 times more complicated than the basic low-level functions your PC is supposed to be able to perform before the OS loads. The fact that onboard motherboard code can boot from USB probably gives people in Redmond sleepless nights.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
  55. I've got to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I encourage watching some movies from the late seventies and early eighties. When you see what appears to be a relatively contemporary office without a single desktop computer or cell phone, you realize just how much things have changed. Beverly Hills Cop is particularly good for this as they depict the BH precinct as having all the latest technology (including what appears to be a single Compaq 286).

  56. Cheap karma by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From Surely You're Joking Mister Feynman:
    Another kind of problem I worked on was this. We had to do lots of calculations, and we did them on Marchant calculating machines. By the way, just to give you an idea of what Los Alamos was like: We had these Marchant computers -- hand calculators with numbers. You push them, and they multiply, divide, add, and so on, but not easy like they do now. They were mechanical gadgets, failing often, and they had to be sent back to the factory to be repaired. Pretty soon you were running out of machines. A few of us started to take the covers off (We weren't supposed to. The rules read: "You take the covers off, we cannot be responsible. . .") So we took the covers off and we got a nice series of lessons on how to fix them, and we got better and better at it as we got more and more elaborate repairs. When we got something too complicated, we sent it back to the factory, but we'd do the easy ones and kept the things going. I ended up doing all the computers and there was a guy in the machine shop who took care of typewriters.
            Anyway, we decided that the big problem -- which was to figure out exactly what happened during the bomb's implosion, so you can figure out exactly how much energy was released and so on -- required much more calculating than we were capable of. A clever fellow by the name of Stanley Frankel realized that it could possibly be done on IBM machines. The IBM company had machines for business purposes, adding machines called tabulators for listing sums, and a multiplier that you put cards in and it would take two numbers from a card and multiply them. There were also collators and sorters and so on.
            So Frankel figured out a nice program. If we got enough of these machines in a room, we could take the cards and put them through a cycle. Everybody who does numerical calculations now knows exactly what I'm talking about, but this was kind of a new thing then -- mass production with machines. We had done things like this on adding machines. Usually you go one step across, doing everything yourself. But this was different -- where you go first to the adder, then to the multiplier, then to the adder, and so on. So Frankel designed this system and ordered the machines from the IBM company, because we realized it was a good way of solving our problems.
            We needed a man to repair the machines, to keep them going and everything. And the army was always going to send this fellow they had, but he was always delayed. Now, we always were in a hurry. Everything we did, we tried to do as quickly as possible. In this particular case, we worked out all the numerical steps that the machines were supposed to do -- multiply this, and then do this, and subtract that. Then we worked out the program, but we didn't have any machine to test it on. So we set up this room with girls in it. Each one had a Marchant: one was the multiplier, another was the adder. This one cubed -- all she did was cube a number on an index card and send it to the next girl.
            We went through our cycle this way until we got all the bugs out. It turned out that the speed at which we were able to do it was a hell of a lot faster than the other way, where every single person did all the steps. We got speed with this system that was the predicted speed for the IBM machine. The only difference is that the IBM machines didn't get tired and could work three shifts. But the girls got tired after a while.
    Of course nowadays they'd just solve this problem by hiring 3X as many girls overseas and running the entire operation remotely on shifts via fiber optic cable.
  57. Efficiency often not better either by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    In the early 90s I used a 1200 baud direct dial up modem to remote into a Unix box using text mode editing, debugging, etc. Worked pretty well, responsiveness typically Now I have broadband, with Pentiums on each end but I use X or VNC through internet. The extra fluffery has soaked up the performance gains and then some. Refreshing times are often > 1 sec. My PC's power supply is 400W.

    So we've made progress, but how much of it really counts?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Efficiency often not better either by espinafre · · Score: 1

      An equivalent application today would be accessing your *NIX servers via SSH, the modern days having brought color and cursor positioning.

      X isn't good for anything but LAN (but has anyone ever tried NX over dialup?)

  58. Re:History should be written by those who remember by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, you're right. By the end of the 80s the 3.5"was the most popular disk by far. The Macintosh started that and then came machines like the Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga. By the end of the eighties quite a few magazines used to come with 640k disks on the front (should be enough for anyone ;-p) and even then we used to joke about the big old 5.25 disks. A couple of years on from this and the HD FD had taken over as being the disk of choice and we used to scoff at the then puny 640k disks (not enough for everyone :-p) etc etc

    In fact, I've just thought, the first Apple superdrive was super because it could r/w to SD,DD and HD floppy formats. Sorry just thought of that . . . shows how the meaning of 'super' changes too.

    TFA would have been better if they'd done any of the pictures to the same scale aswell.

    PS: I'd like to see the Motorola RAZR put out 5W - the transportables could!

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  59. If I hear this petroeuro crap one more time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cash can be converted from dollars to euros and back in the blink of an electron.

    Thus, the value of the dollar depends solely on the demand for the dollar.

    More info here: Why Iran's Oil Bourse can't break the Buck

  60. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    We're talking the late 80's, not the late 70's. In the late 80's the two most popular systems in the US were the IBM PC and the Apple Macintosh.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  61. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    It's still apples versus oranges. Few people use CompactFlash in the same way people used to use floppies. It used to be people would copy files or software to a floppy, and GIVE IT AWAY! At a dollar a pop, it was cheap. When was the last time you heard someone giving away their $480 flashcard? When was the last time you bought some shrinkwrap software that came on CompactFlash?

    The floppy should be compared to the CDR instead.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  62. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It's still apples versus oranges. Few people use CompactFlash in the same way people used to use floppies.
    > The floppy should be compared to the CDR instead.

    Yes, a lot of people use CDRs and DVD-Rs in the same way they used to use floppies.
    They also use keychain USB flash drives *another* same way they used to use floppies.

    It's more like oranges versus tangerines.

  63. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    Not in homes, schools and libraries. Our labs filled with Apple ][es didn't evaporate once the Mac started selling. In fact, our high school didn't have any Macs available to students. A couple were available to teachers. But we had several dozen ][es. The only 3.5" floppy-using machines we had were a network of PS/2s that the business department bought. Those were only available to students taking business dept classes.

    FWIW, the PC XT and PC AT both used 5.25" floppies primarily, and many small businesses that had adopted early were still using them. (For instance, my tax accountant neighbor that I did occasional tech support for, and my employer--the local independent Radio Shack franchise.) It wasn't until around 1992 or 93 that I started using 3.5" floppies more regularly than 5.25" floppies, after I graduated high school. I finally switched A: over to 3.5" sometime in 1994.

    If you're talking start of the 80s, I'd say cassette was more popular than floppy, at least for home users.

    --Joe
  64. Not a resonable suggestion. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Telling a person to take the bus or walk is not a reasonable solution. That is telling the person to be a serf. While there may be the occasional wealthy person that can walk or ride a bike/bus to work, the only reason that those people can do it is because very few people try. The number of well paying jobs that can be maintained withour a car are very few. This is perticularly true of the middle class jobs. If you are very high skilled, you might be able to demand some unusual perks. If you are unskilled and doing a min. wage job, the employer realizes that they are pulling from the bottom and does not expect that everyone can afford a car. The vast majority which is the middle simply have to have a job to work. Many employers actually list it in their policy manuals as a requirement for employment.

    That being said. You are not required to buy insurance to drive. You are requried to prove you can financially cover any losses you cause to others. Most states (all?) allow you to have a secured account that is you self insurance. This can earn interest, and in no way requries you to pay a business. But just like bail bonds, it is WAY cheaper to let someone else keep that account on your behalf for a fee. I don't find it worth it to self insure, so I pay an outside company to insure me. When I bought my Suzuki Swift brand new or $7500 our the door, I did not buy Comp/Coll insurance. This was neigther illegal nor was it a good idea for obviouse reasons. I have purchase liablility insurance for every vehicle I have owned because it was way cheaper for a much higher level of protection than what I could supply myself.

    1. Re:Not a resonable suggestion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Telling a person to take the bus or walk is not a reasonable solution. That is telling the person to be a serf.

      News flash! We are already serfs... we just don't have to act the part because we still have easy credit available! :)

    2. Re:Not a resonable suggestion. by Skagit · · Score: 1
      That is telling the person to be a serf. While there may be the occasional wealthy person that can walk or ride a bike/bus to work, the only reason that those people can do it is because very few people try. The number of well paying jobs that can be maintained withour a car are very few.


      There are huge bedroom communities around New York City where median home values top $500K simply because they are near a commuter rail line. Take Summit, New Jersey as an example. Similarly, Bucks County, Pennsylvania has a county bus that takes commuters to a SEPTA line that either connects to Center City Philly or to NYC via Amtrak. When I take a Metroliner or Acela Express to NYC or DC, it is full of people with monthly passes. You may be correct for other areas of the US, but you're wrong on the Boston-DC Corridor.

      You are not required to buy insurance to drive.


      Yes, you are. In Pennsylvania, your license and registration can be suspended if you do not maintain the required level of automobile insurance. Showing the State Trooper your bank statement is very unlikely to convince him not to give you a ticket for failing to carry liability insurance. Requiring you to buy insurance from a corporation is a way for the state to guarantee some sort of surety for the liability amount. Again, that may be the case in rural areas of the US, but it certainly isn't the case in the Mid-Atalantic.
      --
      Why does my coffee mug smell like trout?
    3. Re:Not a resonable suggestion. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Come to Memphis, TN. Read the billboards plastered all over the freeway - "CAR INSURANCE IS THE LAW" We're being FORCED to buy something.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Not a resonable suggestion. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Only if you call San Francisco and L.A. rural.

      At least here in California, you can insure yourself. No, you cannot just show a CHP your bank statement. That would be silly to even start to believe. I believe it is some specific bond that you have to get. When the bond is issued, you get with it what is the equivalent of a 'proof of insurance card'. So, no, not 'show the State Trooper your bank statement'. How about 'show the State Trooper your proof of self insurance'. You see, you are not failing to carry insurance, you are self insuring. I cannot attest to Pennsylvania, but I would be very suprised if every state that required insurance did not have the same provisions as here in California concerning this. It also would not suprise me if Pennsylvania had this provision and you did not know about it. Very few people in California know about it. It was put in for people that would scream about being required to buy from a company. It does not make financial sense, but it is there.

    5. Re:Not a resonable suggestion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Come to Memphis, TN. Read the billboards plastered all over the freeway - "CAR INSURANCE IS THE LAW"
      > We're being FORCED to buy something.

      You're not being "forced" to do anything. Is someone showing up at your door demanding that you drive a car on public roads?

      You can drive uninsured on your own property. Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right - and having insurance against damage is one of the conditions of exercising that privilege.

    6. Re:Not a resonable suggestion. by don.pratt · · Score: 1

      Imagine that - billboards that present a simplified "sound bite" version of the real story. If you go to the Tennessee DMV web site, you'll see that proof of financial responsibility is the law. Car insurance is just an easy way of complying with the law, but you're not being forced to buy insurance.

  65. Moon Landings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the 70s (and late 60s) we had this thing called a lunar lander. Nowdays we have, ah, ..., never mind.

  66. I remember those space helmet stereos... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    I remember the space helment stereos. Those and computer perfection games:
    http://www.designandfun.com/computer_perfection_sp ace_age_transistor_game.htm

    Were used as props in 70s Sci-Fi shows all over the place.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  67. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you could compare it to an 8GB 2-layer DVD-R, which at less than $2 isn't too far from what a floppy cost in the 80s. Still the same amount of storage as the 8GB flash card, but much cheaper price. Still the same size as the floppy, but much faster and more capacity.

    Keep in mind that a 360k floppy never held very much; you could only fit a few documents or a single app on one. You can fit years worth of business records and a dozen apps on a DVD-DL.

    dom

  68. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could compare that 8GB flash card to an 8GB 2-layer DVD-R, but given that you can't use that DVD-R like a floppy, it's pointless. They are useful for different things.

    You can't move files onto that DVD-R one at a time, eject it, then pop it back in, delete them or update them, add more, etc. You have to go through an annoying process of burning it, and even then it's much too large for most of the data you're going to be working with.

    High-capacity disks are great for backups of entire user or system directories, or for large multimedia files, video, audio, etc. but they are even less comparable to a floppy than the flash drive is!

  69. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check your history - the C64 didn't even exist in the 70s, being released in '82. In the mid to late 80s, it was pretty much the dominant machine in homes, and common in schools and business (although the PC was a rival in the latter). But remember, the PC may rule now, but at the time wasn't particularly distinctive - it had worse graphics than most competitors, and no audio capabilities to speak of.

  70. Minority Report by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

    For Minority Report, they supposedly consulted a 'future technologist' (or whatever you'd call such a person) to thoroughly think all these things through -- in detail. I can't remember all those details right now, but there was a programme about future tech where this was discussed.

  71. About MPG... by KlaymenDK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Believe it or not, a Model T Ford did about the same MPG as an average modern car. Sure, it wasn't os fuel-efficient as today's engines, but then again there were no windscreen wipers, no radio, no aircon, no ..... :) Same MPG, makes one think.

    1. Re:About MPG... by dabadab · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but:

      1. It weighed only 1650 pounds
      2. Its engine produced only 20 HPs (allowing a top speed of around 70 km/h)

      Today, a car with comparable specifications would produce MPG figures at least four times as much as the old T did (the VW Lupo comes to mind (80 MPG), but compared to the T it's a heavy, overly powerful racecar :) )

      --
      Real life is overrated.
  72. And yet, amazingly... time dilated by dbIII · · Score: 1
    It takes less time to burn and boot from a CD than it does to write and boot from a floppy. Floppies are so damn slow,
    Sorry to flame, but please consider reality and the fact that the inexperienced who have not used floppy discs much may believe you before making statements such as this. For a start you have to get the driver disk image off the original media - and burning a CDROM is also slow.
    You haven't given any reasons why
    Yes, one reason was given above - driver disks, even on the MS server platforms. The casual home user may imagine sysadmins making custom install CDROMs for every system at every stage instead of inserting a driver floppy - but apply some critical thought to that imagination and consider that there is other stuff to do instead of creating pointless work. The time saved by putting in a floppy instead of burning a CDROM with a floppy image on it could even be used for writing a few slashdot posts.
    1. Re:And yet, amazingly... time dilated by evilviper · · Score: 1
      For a start you have to get the driver disk image off the original media

      I was very clearly talking about floppy images. If you already have a floppy, it changes things slightly. Even in that case, you're only talking about perhaps one minute more time to make a CD.

      The casual home user may imagine sysadmins making custom install CDROMs for every system at every stage instead of inserting a driver floppy

      Complete bullshit. I was administering over 100 Windows machines just a few years ago, so I know full well how it works. There I would just dump the Windows files on a network server, and add-in any additional drivers needed for ANY of the machines. It's quite simple really, if you have any idea what you're doing.

      And if you want to do it with physical media, you certainly don't need a CD for each one. Spend a couple minutes, add ALL the drivers that will be needed by ANY of the machines, and just burn one CD you can use for all of them. Quite trivial, and it's not more work, it's infinitely less.

      but apply some critical thought to that imagination and consider that there is other stuff to do instead of creating pointless work.

      I think the mod who gave me a -1 Troll, must have been aiming for your post, and missed...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:And yet, amazingly... time dilated by dbIII · · Score: 1
      If you already have a floppy, it changes things slightly. Even in that case, you're only talking about perhaps one minute more time to make a CD.
      So floppy disks have become faster again since your previous post about odd time comparisons? Also I disagree that servers will not be installed from the original media - sometimes you don't want something off the shelf that is installed by someone else for a wide variety of software or hardware reasons.
      Spend a couple minutes, add ALL the drivers that will be needed by ANY of the machines, and just burn one CD you can use for all of them. Quite trivial, and it's not more work, it's infinitely less.
      Then new hardware comes in which your custom CDROM doesn't support - so you have to do it all over again because you've thrown away the floppy drives that you consider useless. I've got a lot of systems without floppy drives but I do not consider them entirely useless and for some of these systems I did attach a floppy for the install process (RAID card driver disk and a firmware update floppy for the drives that runs the update in MSDOS). While it would most likely have been possible to make a bootable CDROM for the firmware update and change all the batch files on there to make it actually work from a CDROM I consider it to be a pointless and time consuming exercise unless the machine doesn't have a floppy disk controller. Be definition they are not useless if people use them and they save time with no ill effects.
    3. Re:And yet, amazingly... time dilated by evilviper · · Score: 1
      So floppy disks have become faster again since your previous post about odd time comparisons?

      No, you completely misread my first post, and completely ignored my second post, where I told you that you had completely misunderstood.

      But you can keep trolling if it somehow makes you feel better.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  73. 8-track horrors by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    FTA: it was quite a longlasting format
    The format, maybe, but the tapes, certainly not. The endless (looped) tape was a Bad Idea, and the cartridge design was crap so they'd jam all the time. Good riddance.

  74. GSM 850/1900/etc version of '80s phones? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    Anyplace to get one of those old-skewl brickfones (or even better, a 2-piece with battery), but using somewhat modern multi-band GSM?

    Preferably with a nice simple VFD.. It'd be better of course if it were modern-engineered but retro-styled, so you could use all that volume for more Li-Ion space, larger antennas, etc.

  75. I looked it up. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I looked it up, and you are wrong. You see the issues are in the symantics. Yes, you must be insured, but since you can insure yourself, you do not have to BUY insurance. Here are the codes concerning self-insurance in Pennsylvania. They tell you both how much money you must have as well as how to get your very own self-insurance card.

    The Pennsylvania Code website

  76. That shouldn't be a problem... I've folded disks by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
    I like stress-testing things. When I got a 5.25 floppy, I folded in half. Creased it, even. Then I did it again, in quarters. Creased it again.

    Unfolded it, put it back in drive. All data read just fine.

    True story.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  77. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    You're talking about high school. I'm talking about the real world. Some classrooms still had Apple IIs all the way into the late 90's, but so what?

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  78. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it had worse graphics than most competitors, and no audio capabilities to speak of.

    Typical slashdot ignorance, thinking the whole world revolves around video games

  79. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    By the end of the 80s the 3.5"was the most popular disk by far.

    Questionable. Most machines other than PCs used 3.5" disks, but PCs were much more numerous and they all included a 5.25" drive. Most of them didn't include a 3.5" floppy drive (except as an option) before 1993. The 3.5" floppy didn't outsell the 5.25" until 1989.

  80. Re:History should be written by those who remember by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    I'm just saying that the most popular media wasn't necessarily 3.5" media at that point. From 89-90, there is a strong argument that 3.5" was the up and comer, but not dominant yet amongst the bulk of users.