On a Mac, you can actually just load up a disk image onto the desktop and it will run. I've run several games this way, much faster then being on the cd drive. Apple's own disk image will do the trick. In OS X, im not sure if thats still the way to do it, but its always worked for me and my little brothers games under MacOS 7+
While I was going to high school there, we had a computer club which was set up, which was suposed to primarily be for geeks to meet in teh maclab and work and learn about computers and stuff like that... needless to say, by the first meeting it had become a gaming club, with network games of marathon, doom and other assorted games. became somewhat popular, but after a while i believed it ceased to be. It not only was a great social activity, but it was also a very good way to relieve stress from the school day. Hopefully its something that will be coming back, if the new administration isnt having too much of draconian policies still being implemented
Now (may 30 1:18PDT) when you go to macslash.com it's a page with visit macslash.org. when you click on the link it takes you to a site with a small message which then finally redirects you to macslash.net
While yea, you probably do want to do something with it, if all possible options are available, that would be one hell of a long drop menu. if a single left click would open it, and a single right click would bring up a menu, what if you wanted to do somethin non-standard with the file? say you want to open that jpg (which normally opens up in IE or somehitng in windows or the mac) but want it opened up in photoshop instead? should the GUI have to compensate for every program that could handle a JPG? that would be way too long of a list. What if you had a menu option of "Open With..." or something to that effect. well, like in windows, that comes up with list of programs listed in the registry. well, thats all nice, but you've still added another step to the process, and you're still stuck with a long menu of all the possible programs to open it with. And what if you want to open it with some small standalone shareware program you downloaded, which never required to add itself to the windows registry? that program would never come up on the list, you would have to click on that "other program" button in the list that popped up. and then go ahead and search for it. Now, what would have maybve been a click-and drag or possibly a 2-click process, suddenly has turned into 3-4, maybe more steps. as annoying as it may be, single-click on everything would not be the answer. Not to mention that actually making multiple buttons required for basic usage would add complexity to someone just learning how to use a computer. (and before you bring up windows, you can easily get by without ever hitting that right-click button on the mouse. and if your teaching someone linux whos never used a computer before, their bound to have trouble, due to the fact that for useability you practically need _3_ buttons on the mouse) So while double-clicking and single-clicking might not be the most efficient process, for right now, its better then the alternatives.
Could you imagine....no, seriously
on
Science Grid Genesis
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these? not simply in the joke and drool senses, but an actual cluster of supercomputers. Beowulf is great, it allows smaller, slower pcs to be used as part of a parallel-processing cluster. But why not a cluster of supercomputers? even these multi-million dollar supercomputers have a somewhat limited lifetime... (ive seen a few on ebay) but why not take these aging number-crunchin behemoths and cluster them? This would provide the massive power or more of the newer ones, while still allowing to use the older hardware for longer periods of time. Just a thought
This is actually a good question.
Up until last week (havent tried since then) @home's news servers were EXTREMELY faster then cox's own servers. (san diego area)
while doing my "research" on redheaded females, it would take up to 50 seconds to display a pic, whereas on cox's servers it would take no more then 4 seconds...
and thats not on the binary groups, its on all of them.
However, what cox's servers severely lack in speed, they make up for in breadth of newsgroups.
granted, some are empty, and/or useless (misslpelled variations of diff ones) they have a wide variety of groups that @home either never carried or blocked. if only they could speed things up with those servers, it would definately be well received...
in 97, when they lost 1047 million....
remember, 495 of that was for buying out NeXT...
100 Million for buying back PowerComputing's MacOS License...
and several hundred other millions for the other OS Cloners.
so while they might have very well made some very decent money on hardware and software, the total loss for that year also includes all the companies and licenses tehy bought out that year, along with operating costs and other one-time investments and all
Is it an Application? Yes. Does it run native on MacOSX? Yes. well, almost.
On that you are absolutely right.
Is MacOSX a Unix OS? Yes. Somewhat.
MacOSX is based on a BSD/Mach Kernel. But that doesnt make it Unix. The Unix compatibility is more of a one-way street than anything else. Lemme hit a few more of your points, and I'll explain:
Carbon Applications are every bit as Unix as Cocoa. True, but not in the way you meant. Cocoa has _NOTHING_ to do with Unix, and neither does carbon.
Carbon is not some thin wrapper Apple devised to help developers port. somewhat true. Carbon is almost the entire MacOS toolbox, as its been since the begining. Apple took the existing toolbox, weeded out the APIs that wouldnt work under OSX (the ones with direct hardware access, for example) and added a few new oens, and called that carbon. Its a completely integrated API set for MacOSX, not just a wrapper.
This aided in porting current applications to MAcOSX without having to do a major re-write.
In fact some aspects of Cocoa, under the OO level, are implemented using Carbon API calls. wrong. Cocoa was pretty much done LONG before the idea of carbon came around. originally, there was going to be a "classic" compatibility layer, much like there is now, and then from there developers would have to completrely re-write their applications in objective-c or java for cocoa (yellow box, as it was known then). After much developer discontent, they decided to add carbon, which sits NEXT to cocoa, not underneath it. In fact, with MacOSX server 1, there was no carbon compatibility layer, or a classic layer for that matter. just BSD and yellow-box.
They use terminology like a Terminal window "letting you talking directly to the Unix kernel". This is crap, the shell is just another program. They mystify Unix and make it sound harder than it really is. I agree, it could be taken as confusing. but with terminal programs, you can simply port most *nix applications and have them run in the terminal without a problem.
The problem only arises if you try to use a GUI, under which case you would have to use quartz...
which has _NOTHING_ to do with x11 or gnome or kde or anything like that.
In short, unless it is running in the classic environment (they all run as one application), it is a Unix Application. BZZZZZZT.
nope.
its a Unix application as much as OfficeXP is a VAX/XMS application (NT having some of its roots in VMS, Win32 having its roots in NT)
Now, getting to what I was saying earlier, Unix compatibility ios a one-way street with MacOSX. it is based on a Mach/BSD kernel, and can run a good deal of bsd/unix programs with a simple re-compile or some minor code tweaking....
But theres a lot more to OSX then the BSD layer.
On top of that, is the Carbon and Cocoa APIs, which run on top of the BSD layer. THESE are what the native applications are written to, the higher-level APIs. and then there is the Quartz graphics layer, which is the GUI for OSX.
Any Native MacOSX application, therefore, isnt written to the BSD layer, but to the cocoa and carbon layer that sits atop it.
Apple could port (with significant effort, no doubt) the upper layers of MacOSX to run on the NT kernel, but that wouldnt make the applications any more Win32 then it would make them BSD or VAX for that matter.
this is evolution, and its only working one way.
Humans arent gonna evolve into apes (although its arguable that a fair amount have the brain capacity of apes....), and in somewhat the same way, OSX applications arent gonna evolve into Unix applications.
they can be re-written, but not simply evolve into them.
The advantage of the digital camera is that you can take a crap load of pictures to get a few good ones. You delete the others. Why would I want to start paying per picture again?
Kodak and others make a pretty nice chunk of change selling everyone and their mothers rolls of film, that you can only use once.
With digital cameras, you no longer have to buy film all the time, you just download it into your computer, clear the ram, and your set.
definately not in Kodak's best interest.
With a chip like this, they could begin to make something like "disposeable" digital cameras, and the like. get a cheap camera, use up the write-only chip, return it to a store for development, adn it gets recycled with a new chip.
With the amount of $ that is involved in the film market, its not a question of if we'll see something like this on the market...
jsut a matter of when.
no matter if it would be a technological and logical step backwards. (And if you need proof, just look at our favorite monopoly
Very true, the boot ROM is soldered on the CPU card for older iMacs.
but at least one upgrade manufacturer had a very interesting workaround for this, they provided their own boot rom, and an additional flash rom.
Before installing the upgrade card, you would run a utility which would make a dump of your Apple-provided ROM, and save it to a special place on the HD.
You could then proceed to install the upgrade card, and upon boot-up, the manufacturer-provided rom would search a specific area of your hard drive and get the ROM image, and copy it over to the Flash ROM, and the upgrade is complete.
As for the current and next iMacs to come out, however, i am not aware if the ROM is still on the CPU daughtercard or finallty made its way to the motherboard.
Mac CPUs over teh ages....
on
Dual G4 Mac Cube
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This has been an easy thing to do with Macs for years.
Unlike PCs, which are instaled in ZIF sockets, Macs have had a few diferent ways of connecting the processors, but with one unique, and very advantageous difference.
Since the PCI powermacs came out, the PPC processors have been on daughtercards (except a rare few consumer class machines which had it soldered onto the mobo, but thats a different story).
These daughtercards can have several proicessors on it, and can easily be interchanged.
Unlike PCs, which have the entire processor bus on teh mobo itself, with separate traces for each possible CPU, powemacs usually have the processor bus itself as a daughtercard connector, so there is no difference between a mobo for a 1 cpu machine and a 4-way machine (Such as the Daystar Digital mac clones, which used the same mobo as the PowerMac 9500 of the time, just a 4-way 604e CPU)
These daughtercards have seen a few different formats over the past few generations. The original PCI powermacs had a slotted daughtercard which was simply inserted like any expansion card, and could be used to upgrade any of those machines with up to a G4 cpu, made by some upgrade manufacturers. Then with the Beige G3 machines, came the Zif socket, but which also supported multiple CPUs if necessary, although not many upgrade companies made them.
Then, with the Sawtooth G4 machine (the one which finally brought AGP to the mac) the CPU went onto a daughtercard which was connected via a 423(?) pin rectangular socket, which can accomodate several CPUs.
This socket is what was used in the MP G4 machines, making it possible to use the same Motherboard in all their desktop G4s, simplifying the product line.
The iMacs also use a similar, but incompatible socket, which could theoretically support multiple CPUs.
-=-=-=-
Also, for information on how to Overclock these daughtercards, and several different Macs in general, visit http://violet.berkeley.edu/~schrier/mhz.html
for instructions and some interesting reading.
And for those wanting to overclock a Mac....
beware: you need to make motherboard/daughtercard modifications to do so.
the RS/6000 is a workstation line from IBM which runs on PPC chips and on their Power series chips(HIgh-end relatives of PPC).
Most of cpu instructions are the same, with some diferences.
Just when i decide that i might as well give up on having anything useful happen with my Model 70, and get rid of it...
*sigh*
although, its def a good thing, seein as how a lot of the RS/6000 machines use MCA, so the bus support is something that should be very useful/important for any OS bein ported to those...
Actually, ClarisWorks has had a spreadsheet since i can remember.
ive done several (and i mean several) spreadsheets for school and home in clarisworks, 3.0 i believe at the time, although i might have also done some in 2.x.
the one thing that ClarisWorks was missing, however, was presentation software.
Something like powerpoint.
It had a slide-show feature which worked with the documents you created, but it came nowhere near powerpoint.
However, even that changed with version 6.0.
Unfortunately, however, i never was able to get my hands on a copy...
And Apple stopped developing it for Windows, so i cant try it on my dual celeron either.
While not what most people would think of as classy, I was in teh search for a desk that i could put in at least 2 computers, and maybe still have space for doing my paperwork in the middle...
I was even considering getting a somewhat cheap computer desk for around $200, which would definately crimp my wallet for a while.
But instead, i found the perfect solution, which gave me far more space then any desk that ive seen available...
a quick trip to home depot:
I picked up a 3/4" sheet of pine, 2x6 ft. for $25
Using 2 speakers i had lying around (from an old ent center i obtained, about 30" high) i put the table on top of them, gave it a nice coat of stain..
The result: a good, sturdy desk thats currently holding 2 comps, gives me space for 2 keyboards and associated mice on the table, and i still have a foot or 2 of paper/junk space in between.
all for $30, and less time then it would take to assemble one of the desks you get from most places.
Definately a good idea for the geek on a budget.
My next step, is to build some shelves onto it, to keep my books and assorted periperals..
estimated cost: another $20 or so.
I know its mostly dead now, but HOtline used to provide most of that, making it the reason it was my program of choice in my MacWarez days...
Once you connected to a server, you had file transfer with start/stop/resume, you could comunicate with other users on the server, you could tunnel through http...
i dont recall if any incarnations had any more secure features, however.
It was a wonderful program, with actually a lot of promise, until it was released for windows, at which point it became a banner-ad driven attempt at making money for files which were usually not provided at the end.(clicking on banner pages to get username/passwds to get in and download the warez/pr0n/mp3s/whatever needed.
IBMs power4?
or what about the PowerPC and its variants?
2 VERY nice architectures, and arguably the only ones other then sparc that dont seem likely to get gobbled up by chipzilla
Well, the idea is to keep the data safe, not the laptop itself.
If you reformat the hard drive, then whoever had valuable secret data in there has nothing to worry about it getting out in the open or in the wrong hands.
ok, i think this just went from being funny to being pathetic.
_BUT_....
In MY day, we had to create the molecular structure for sand and metal before we could go about building our computers...
Pre-made atoms?
bah.
childs stuff
For those who might have read the linked/. story but not the article which brought it about, here is the original ArsTechnica article.
Interesting, somewhat in-depth information on metadata and its uses both within and outside of the Mac.
Here and here is also some information on the NTFS filesystem, and how metadata is used there.
-Joel
One important part that still has to be overcome in MANY school districts, is the fear of the free products...
be it beer or speech.
While the open-source CAD tools may be on par with autocad and the like, the fact that they are open source, or made for linux, will be something that would keep even cash-strapped districts away from it, because "its not something they can trust, with no 800 number they can call with problems and get a chance to pay to listen to classical music for an hour" (I've actually heard a teacher say this)
While the Open-source movement is gaining a lot of ground, which is a great thing, it still has lots of work to be done to get people to accept the fact that M$ is not part of the government and they dont need to pay the Micro$oft tax on each piece of computer equipment they buy.
While true that Linux will (sadly) always run better on X86, once you get to the point that you have a card properly workin on the box, it minimizes the work needed to port the driver from Linux to Solaris.
and just because it would be a 3dcard, it wouldnt mean that the purpose would be to play games...
esp since most games are x86-specific.
But once the hardware is working, getting it suported by other OSs on that platform will be easier then say, trying to write a driver from scratch without knowfing if the hardware config is properly working first.
Slashdot Mirror
On a Mac, you can actually just load up a disk image onto the desktop and it will run.
I've run several games this way, much faster then being on the cd drive.
Apple's own disk image will do the trick.
In OS X, im not sure if thats still the way to do it, but its always worked for me and my little brothers games under MacOS 7+
While I was going to high school there, we had a computer club which was set up, which was suposed to primarily be for geeks to meet in teh maclab and work and learn about computers and stuff like that...
needless to say, by the first meeting it had become a gaming club, with network games of marathon, doom and other assorted games.
became somewhat popular, but after a while i believed it ceased to be.
It not only was a great social activity, but it was also a very good way to relieve stress from the school day.
Hopefully its something that will be coming back, if the new administration isnt having too much of draconian policies still being implemented
Now (may 30 1:18PDT) when you go to macslash.com it's a page with
visit macslash.org.
when you click on the link it takes you to a site with a small message which then finally redirects you to macslash.net
While yea, you probably do want to do something with it, if all possible options are available, that would be one hell of a long drop menu.
if a single left click would open it, and a single right click would bring up a menu, what if you wanted to do somethin non-standard with the file?
say you want to open that jpg (which normally opens up in IE or somehitng in windows or the mac) but want it opened up in photoshop instead?
should the GUI have to compensate for every program that could handle a JPG? that would be way too long of a list.
What if you had a menu option of "Open With..." or something to that effect.
well, like in windows, that comes up with list of programs listed in the registry. well, thats all nice, but you've still added another step to the process, and you're still stuck with a long menu of all the possible programs to open it with.
And what if you want to open it with some small standalone shareware program you downloaded, which never required to add itself to the windows registry? that program would never come up on the list, you would have to click on that "other program" button in the list that popped up. and then go ahead and search for it.
Now, what would have maybve been a click-and drag or possibly a 2-click process, suddenly has turned into 3-4, maybe more steps.
as annoying as it may be, single-click on everything would not be the answer.
Not to mention that actually making multiple buttons required for basic usage would add complexity to someone just learning how to use a computer. (and before you bring up windows, you can easily get by without ever hitting that right-click button on the mouse. and if your teaching someone linux whos never used a computer before, their bound to have trouble, due to the fact that for useability you practically need _3_ buttons on the mouse)
So while double-clicking and single-clicking might not be the most efficient process, for right now, its better then the alternatives.
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these?
not simply in the joke and drool senses, but an actual cluster of supercomputers.
Beowulf is great, it allows smaller, slower pcs to be used as part of a parallel-processing cluster. But why not a cluster of supercomputers?
even these multi-million dollar supercomputers have a somewhat limited lifetime...
(ive seen a few on ebay) but why not take these aging number-crunchin behemoths and cluster them?
This would provide the massive power or more of the newer ones, while still allowing to use the older hardware for longer periods of time.
Just a thought
This is actually a good question.
Up until last week (havent tried since then) @home's news servers were EXTREMELY faster then cox's own servers. (san diego area)
while doing my "research" on redheaded females, it would take up to 50 seconds to display a pic, whereas on cox's servers it would take no more then 4 seconds...
and thats not on the binary groups, its on all of them.
However, what cox's servers severely lack in speed, they make up for in breadth of newsgroups.
granted, some are empty, and/or useless (misslpelled variations of diff ones) they have a wide variety of groups that @home either never carried or blocked. if only they could speed things up with those servers, it would definately be well received...
in 97, when they lost 1047 million....
remember, 495 of that was for buying out NeXT...
100 Million for buying back PowerComputing's MacOS License...
and several hundred other millions for the other OS Cloners.
so while they might have very well made some very decent money on hardware and software, the total loss for that year also includes all the companies and licenses tehy bought out that year, along with operating costs and other one-time investments and all
But you managed to be wrong on every point.
Is it an Application? Yes.
Does it run native on MacOSX? Yes.
well, almost.
On that you are absolutely right.
Is MacOSX a Unix OS? Yes.
Somewhat.
MacOSX is based on a BSD/Mach Kernel. But that doesnt make it Unix. The Unix compatibility is more of a one-way street than anything else. Lemme hit a few more of your points, and I'll explain:
Carbon Applications are every bit as Unix as Cocoa.
True, but not in the way you meant. Cocoa has _NOTHING_ to do with Unix, and neither does carbon.
Carbon is not some thin wrapper Apple devised to help developers port.
somewhat true. Carbon is almost the entire MacOS toolbox, as its been since the begining. Apple took the existing toolbox, weeded out the APIs that wouldnt work under OSX (the ones with direct hardware access, for example) and added a few new oens, and called that carbon. Its a completely integrated API set for MacOSX, not just a wrapper.
This aided in porting current applications to MAcOSX without having to do a major re-write.
In fact some aspects of Cocoa, under the OO level, are implemented using Carbon API calls.
wrong. Cocoa was pretty much done LONG before the idea of carbon came around. originally, there was going to be a "classic" compatibility layer, much like there is now, and then from there developers would have to completrely re-write their applications in objective-c or java for cocoa (yellow box, as it was known then). After much developer discontent, they decided to add carbon, which sits NEXT to cocoa, not underneath it. In fact, with MacOSX server 1, there was no carbon compatibility layer, or a classic layer for that matter. just BSD and yellow-box.
They use terminology like a Terminal window "letting you talking directly to the Unix kernel". This is crap, the shell is just another program. They mystify Unix and make it sound harder than it really is.
I agree, it could be taken as confusing. but with terminal programs, you can simply port most *nix applications and have them run in the terminal without a problem.
The problem only arises if you try to use a GUI, under which case you would have to use quartz...
which has _NOTHING_ to do with x11 or gnome or kde or anything like that.
In short, unless it is running in the classic environment (they all run as one application), it is a Unix Application.
BZZZZZZT.
nope.
its a Unix application as much as OfficeXP is a VAX/XMS application (NT having some of its roots in VMS, Win32 having its roots in NT)
Now, getting to what I was saying earlier, Unix compatibility ios a one-way street with MacOSX. it is based on a Mach/BSD kernel, and can run a good deal of bsd/unix programs with a simple re-compile or some minor code tweaking....
But theres a lot more to OSX then the BSD layer.
On top of that, is the Carbon and Cocoa APIs, which run on top of the BSD layer. THESE are what the native applications are written to, the higher-level APIs. and then there is the Quartz graphics layer, which is the GUI for OSX.
Any Native MacOSX application, therefore, isnt written to the BSD layer, but to the cocoa and carbon layer that sits atop it.
Apple could port (with significant effort, no doubt) the upper layers of MacOSX to run on the NT kernel, but that wouldnt make the applications any more Win32 then it would make them BSD or VAX for that matter.
this is evolution, and its only working one way.
Humans arent gonna evolve into apes (although its arguable that a fair amount have the brain capacity of apes....), and in somewhat the same way, OSX applications arent gonna evolve into Unix applications.
they can be re-written, but not simply evolve into them.
The advantage of the digital camera is that you can take a crap load of pictures to get a few good ones. You delete the others. Why would I want to start paying per picture again?
Kodak and others make a pretty nice chunk of change selling everyone and their mothers rolls of film, that you can only use once.
With digital cameras, you no longer have to buy film all the time, you just download it into your computer, clear the ram, and your set.
definately not in Kodak's best interest.
With a chip like this, they could begin to make something like "disposeable" digital cameras, and the like. get a cheap camera, use up the write-only chip, return it to a store for development, adn it gets recycled with a new chip.
With the amount of $ that is involved in the film market, its not a question of if we'll see something like this on the market...
jsut a matter of when.
no matter if it would be a technological and logical step backwards. (And if you need proof, just look at our favorite monopoly
See, I knew it: Little is better.
Taco, are you trying to tell us something we don't want to know?
=/
Very true, the boot ROM is soldered on the CPU card for older iMacs.
but at least one upgrade manufacturer had a very interesting workaround for this, they provided their own boot rom, and an additional flash rom.
Before installing the upgrade card, you would run a utility which would make a dump of your Apple-provided ROM, and save it to a special place on the HD.
You could then proceed to install the upgrade card, and upon boot-up, the manufacturer-provided rom would search a specific area of your hard drive and get the ROM image, and copy it over to the Flash ROM, and the upgrade is complete.
As for the current and next iMacs to come out, however, i am not aware if the ROM is still on the CPU daughtercard or finallty made its way to the motherboard.
This has been an easy thing to do with Macs for years.
Unlike PCs, which are instaled in ZIF sockets, Macs have had a few diferent ways of connecting the processors, but with one unique, and very advantageous difference.
Since the PCI powermacs came out, the PPC processors have been on daughtercards (except a rare few consumer class machines which had it soldered onto the mobo, but thats a different story).
These daughtercards can have several proicessors on it, and can easily be interchanged.
Unlike PCs, which have the entire processor bus on teh mobo itself, with separate traces for each possible CPU, powemacs usually have the processor bus itself as a daughtercard connector, so there is no difference between a mobo for a 1 cpu machine and a 4-way machine (Such as the Daystar Digital mac clones, which used the same mobo as the PowerMac 9500 of the time, just a 4-way 604e CPU)
These daughtercards have seen a few different formats over the past few generations. The original PCI powermacs had a slotted daughtercard which was simply inserted like any expansion card, and could be used to upgrade any of those machines with up to a G4 cpu, made by some upgrade manufacturers. Then with the Beige G3 machines, came the Zif socket, but which also supported multiple CPUs if necessary, although not many upgrade companies made them.
Then, with the Sawtooth G4 machine (the one which finally brought AGP to the mac) the CPU went onto a daughtercard which was connected via a 423(?) pin rectangular socket, which can accomodate several CPUs.
This socket is what was used in the MP G4 machines, making it possible to use the same Motherboard in all their desktop G4s, simplifying the product line.
The iMacs also use a similar, but incompatible socket, which could theoretically support multiple CPUs.
-=-=-=-
Also, for information on how to Overclock these daughtercards, and several different Macs in general, visit http://violet.berkeley.edu/~schrier/mhz.html
for instructions and some interesting reading.
And for those wanting to overclock a Mac....
beware: you need to make motherboard/daughtercard modifications to do so.
the RS/6000 is a workstation line from IBM which runs on PPC chips and on their Power series chips(HIgh-end relatives of PPC).
Most of cpu instructions are the same, with some diferences.
Just when i decide that i might as well give up on having anything useful happen with my Model 70, and get rid of it...
*sigh*
although, its def a good thing, seein as how a lot of the RS/6000 machines use MCA, so the bus support is something that should be very useful/important for any OS bein ported to those...
Actually, ClarisWorks has had a spreadsheet since i can remember.
ive done several (and i mean several) spreadsheets for school and home in clarisworks, 3.0 i believe at the time, although i might have also done some in 2.x.
the one thing that ClarisWorks was missing, however, was presentation software.
Something like powerpoint.
It had a slide-show feature which worked with the documents you created, but it came nowhere near powerpoint.
However, even that changed with version 6.0.
Unfortunately, however, i never was able to get my hands on a copy...
And Apple stopped developing it for Windows, so i cant try it on my dual celeron either.
While not what most people would think of as classy, I was in teh search for a desk that i could put in at least 2 computers, and maybe still have space for doing my paperwork in the middle...
I was even considering getting a somewhat cheap computer desk for around $200, which would definately crimp my wallet for a while.
But instead, i found the perfect solution, which gave me far more space then any desk that ive seen available...
a quick trip to home depot:
I picked up a 3/4" sheet of pine, 2x6 ft. for $25
Using 2 speakers i had lying around (from an old ent center i obtained, about 30" high) i put the table on top of them, gave it a nice coat of stain..
The result: a good, sturdy desk thats currently holding 2 comps, gives me space for 2 keyboards and associated mice on the table, and i still have a foot or 2 of paper/junk space in between.
all for $30, and less time then it would take to assemble one of the desks you get from most places.
Definately a good idea for the geek on a budget.
My next step, is to build some shelves onto it, to keep my books and assorted periperals..
estimated cost: another $20 or so.
I know its mostly dead now, but HOtline used to provide most of that, making it the reason it was my program of choice in my MacWarez days...
Once you connected to a server, you had file transfer with start/stop/resume, you could comunicate with other users on the server, you could tunnel through http...
i dont recall if any incarnations had any more secure features, however.
It was a wonderful program, with actually a lot of promise, until it was released for windows, at which point it became a banner-ad driven attempt at making money for files which were usually not provided at the end.(clicking on banner pages to get username/passwds to get in and download the warez/pr0n/mp3s/whatever needed.
IBMs power4?
or what about the PowerPC and its variants?
2 VERY nice architectures, and arguably the only ones other then sparc that dont seem likely to get gobbled up by chipzilla
Well, the idea is to keep the data safe, not the laptop itself.
If you reformat the hard drive, then whoever had valuable secret data in there has nothing to worry about it getting out in the open or in the wrong hands.
ok, i think this just went from being funny to being pathetic.
_BUT_....
In MY day, we had to create the molecular structure for sand and metal before we could go about building our computers...
Pre-made atoms?
bah.
childs stuff
For those who might have read the linked /. story but not the article which brought it about, here is the original ArsTechnica article.
Interesting, somewhat in-depth information on metadata and its uses both within and outside of the Mac.
Here and here is also some information on the NTFS filesystem, and how metadata is used there.
-Joel
Um, i believe that the boy band your thinking of is Menudo, not minuet.
But close enough.
:P
Till NetBSD is ported to the butter palm?
One important part that still has to be overcome in MANY school districts, is the fear of the free products...
be it beer or speech.
While the open-source CAD tools may be on par with autocad and the like, the fact that they are open source, or made for linux, will be something that would keep even cash-strapped districts away from it, because "its not something they can trust, with no 800 number they can call with problems and get a chance to pay to listen to classical music for an hour" (I've actually heard a teacher say this)
While the Open-source movement is gaining a lot of ground, which is a great thing, it still has lots of work to be done to get people to accept the fact that M$ is not part of the government and they dont need to pay the Micro$oft tax on each piece of computer equipment they buy.
While true that Linux will (sadly) always run better on X86, once you get to the point that you have a card properly workin on the box, it minimizes the work needed to port the driver from Linux to Solaris.
and just because it would be a 3dcard, it wouldnt mean that the purpose would be to play games...
esp since most games are x86-specific.
But once the hardware is working, getting it suported by other OSs on that platform will be easier then say, trying to write a driver from scratch without knowfing if the hardware config is properly working first.