Actually, the mono versions of these discs are quite interesting, because they are in no way 'Left + Right speakers sticked together' versions.
Remember the LP's albums from the late 60's were the first to use the stereo technology. As many new technologies, this technology was at firtst misused and misunderstood: nobody knew how to use it well and often did an awful work with it (think: the drums left, all the other tracks right).
Take for instance Jefferson Airplane's masterpiece 'Surrealistic Pillow' (1967): the new, remastered edition comes with both mixes (on only one CD, though). You can hear that the mono mix is by far superior to the stereo mix, because, as stated in the sleeve notes, the sound engineer completely misunderstood what stereo was about. He added tons of flanger and 'cool' effects to the music, which just sounded awful in stereo. Errors he didn't make on the mono mix.
Another exemple is The Beatles's 'Sgt. Pepper's' (1967, too): the mono mix was made by the Beatles themselves and the stereo mix was left to some obscure sound engineer: so, the mono mix is really the way the artists intended it to be heard !
Old timers can remember about Executor, made by a little New-Mexican company named ARDI.
It featured a quick 68k emulator, and it was the only 'legal' Mac emulator available on PC: they did re-write most of Apple's code (the ROM and the OS itself), allowing them not only to be free from Apple's code but to make it really fast too, by having rewritten the system calls in native x86 code.
I'd sure love to see this little company putting together a G3/G4 emulator. Wishful thinking, I know.
Anyway, if an iMac emulator appears, I hope those cheap multi-gigahertz AMD boxes will be able to emulate a little G3 on inexpensive hardware: finally all those x86 OS X curious, not wanting to buy a Mac because of its price will have a way to play with OS X... And to upgrade with the real thing!
- Infact I can probably run macos9 apps faster in linux then MacOSX : The Classic environment in Mac OS X is build on the same idea than mac-on-linux. The speed of Classic apps is the same as mac-on-linux's speed, ie. near 100%, provided you have enough memory.
- WIth Linux, I can run MS Word, Excell, IE, quake3, and even java : really, these apps are far better under OS X than under OS 9 : Microsoft did a good job porting its Office suite to OS X. Quake 3 works well too (never tried it, but often heard it) and Java is well integrated in OS X
- I don't believe X is even supported under OSX : XDarwin 4.2 works very well under OS X, in two screen modes : 'Rootless', where the Mac Apps and the X apps coexist on the screen and 'Full screen' (you have to switch between Mac OS X and X thanks to a key combination).
- OSX is slower according to all the benchmarks I have seen comparing it with linux : I think that OS X's window server/manager have still to be optimized and therefore are to blame for the slowness of OS X, so this comparison is not really accurate.
I'm not a Mac OS X zealot, I know it isn't perfect, but it's worth the look. Really, go and try it, you'll be surprised.
Having a common interface to do both your display rendering and your print rendering makes sense, and Microsoft didn't come up with the idea. I'm not sure who did, but NeXT was touting "display postscript" a very long time ago.
And now NeXT's son, Mac OS X, uses the son of postscript (PDF) for the display (through 'Quartz' technology) and the printing. True WYSIWYG.
Hey Apple, if you listen ? You provide iMovie free, you provide iTune free, why not writting iHyperCard and provide it free of charge for everybody with every Macintosh, with every MacOS X? You already provide complete professional development tools... That would be a great asset for you.
(and opening the file format would be the cherry on the top, for sure)
Why not ? Simply because it goes against Apple's policy of deliberately killing legacy applications/hardware, hoping that, in the long run, they'll build better products.
They take the opposite way of Wintel. Wintel loves legacy. You know, this patched 8-bit processor and this patched 8-bit OS which runs on the majority of desktop machines.
OTOH, Apple gently killed the 680x0 arch, is willing to kill the Classic MacOS and its classic tools (HyperCard being one of them). It's the only good reason I can think of to explain why they don't release specs. and/or source code for HyperCard.
No flames please, I'm not saying they do right. I just try to explain why they won't (probably) open HyperCard's source.
I noticed in the last few months that Macintoshes, PPC's, LinuxPPC and all are in the road of becoming nerds machine.
Being myself a big fan of this stuff, I'm quite happy to see geeks realize there's life after Intel/AMD.
Now, what is the reason of this move (in the right direction) ? Is it because of Apple producing damn good hardware (God knows my iBook rules)? Or because of MacOS X being built on a sane basis? Or something else?
And... Congrats to Jason for all he has been achieving these last months.
Totally Offtopic Side Note 1: I find it amusing that LinuxToday.com.au snatched my X icon: I always thought it was probably the crappiest Slashdot icon, and I never dreamed anyone would want to take it. (...)
Hey! the crappiest Slashdot icon used to be the WINE icon. I was going to post a comment about that, but I first checked that it still wasn't changed.
Memmaker was my favourite game... I once did a very good score of 614 Ko with all drivers loaded (on a 486 : on a PI, my best score was only 592 Ko IIRC).
I had forgotten memmaker. I really miss memmaker. Sure. Really.
1. Qwartz
2. MacOS X
3. IE 5
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Better than anything you've seen
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. MS-Office 2001
10. It's X (=10):o)
I think you were describing MacOS X, werent't you ?
Not for Christmas, but maybe for Valentine's day.
Stéphane
IE 5.0 for MacOS is superior to IE 5.x on Win32 on many aspects. It is often cited as an the best browser ever made.
It's standard-compliants, stable, etc. It still has some bugs though (it's a.0 version and, almost six months after it's release, I'd be happy to see a.01 revision) and it is slow as hell when rendering some document (try a slashdot comments page fully threaded).
If MS releases IE for Linux, chances are it will be a POS. But chances are equal that they will do quite a good job on it. I know what they did for Solaris (a fuzzy port of the Win32 API to make the Win32 source work on it), but for the Macintosh, they wrote a whole new application from scratch. Pray !;)
That's funny I see this thread today, since I had a discussion a few days ago with some important ISP here...
When I started publishing web page here (I live in Belgium, EU), every vHost had his own IP.
In the meantime, I moved my web pages to web hostings to Jumpline, who give an excellent service and an IP per domain name. It was a lot cheaper service thant EU's one at the time.
A few days ago, I had the discussion with 3 of the most important ISP in Belgium: for some reason, I wanted to vhost my pages in Belgium again (the price is now roughly the same than in the US). My idea didn't last: name-based hosting is the rule here, and they looked at me as if I was a martian when I told them I wanted my own IP by vHost.
In a more general context, I'd really like to see an quick adoption of IPv6: more and more ISP's here rely on NAT (whith all the problems it can give) and host hundreds of sites by IP.
I'd appreciate to read some specs about that little thing: not a word about them, just two games screenshots.
Perhaps I've missed something, but I can't remember having read something about it on/.: is it a pocket SNES? Or just some hardware that has about the same abilities than the SNES, but has nothing in common with it?
What about battery life ? Technology used for the screen?
Stephane
Notebooks, portables... Desktop, any chance ?
on
IBM Wary of Crusoe?
·
· Score: 2
Maybe some offers of desktop machines powered by these puppies would help their acceptance on the mainstream market. Why are they so much geared for the 'alternative' markets (note the quotes) of (ultra-)portables ?
My point is that these processors (on paper) seem to have a potential as the part of a 100% quiet PC : since they don't produce as much heat as other x86 and compatibles, they could live without a fan, saving our mistreated ears and nerves.
I'd be very interested in building a Transmeta-powered machine for my personal use, but -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there's no desktop motherboard available. That's a shame. Besides the fact that they would be more expensive than an Intel or AMD processor of similar performance, are there good reasons why we don't see any desktop offer ? Any clue about a mobo manufacturer who has plans on supporting these ?
Stéphane
Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
True to previous rumors, the mouse does not sport a traditional mouse button. Instead, sources said, the user simply applies pressure to to front of the unit, at which time resistance will give way allowing the mouse, as a whole, to tilt closer to the underlying surface, producing what is currently known as a mouse click.
Will Apple finally understand that a second button can be really useful for a whole range of tasks, and send a different signal to the computer whether the right and the left 'non-button' is pressed ?
And, even better... A 'non-wheel' support sure would be could too.
Stéphane
Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
or SMB, not a standard but would require no extra software for windows users?
Is the average user computer savvy enough to understand how to share a directory from his PC HD ? From that point of view, a dedicated and simplified FTP server included on a CD found in the box would be easier.
I know Macs have some implementation of SMB (I don't know what it's called).
I think that "Dave" is an SMB server for the Macintosh.
Another question that comes to mind is : is it easy for Dell to implement an SMB client ? An FTP client would sure be easiest to implement, wouldn't it ?
Stéphane Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
I was wondering about that while reading the article. The best way to make it simple, IMHO, would be to use the FTP protocol. At least one implementation of an FTP server is freely available on every OS I can think of. Moreover, it could be packaged with a simple, made on purpose FTP server for those Windows people who don't want the pain of installing a non dedicated FTP server on their W98 box.
Now, the problem is that it isn't the original aim of the FTP protocol at all. It would certainly not be the most efficient protocol to serve this purpose, but we are talking about 128-192 Kbits / sec, i.e. virtually nothing. And it would make things so simple !
Does anybody think about inherent limits of the FTP protocol which would make it really incompatible with such a system ? I sure can stream mp3's by FTP from my 10 Mbits-connected-P100 Linux box so it can be so hard to conceive (I mean, I could do it, but I use Samba for this).
Stéphane Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon? Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
In fact, iMac is a generic name for several different translucent Macintoshes with a built-in screen. The first iMac generation had a fan, newer ones haven't any.
Apple has always had a policy of designing silent machines. IIRC, it's partly due to Steve Job's aversion for those noisy machines.
The new iMacs, with other improvements, introduced a new sound system, known as the Harman/Kardon Odyssey audio system, which gives them an unprecedented sound quality : Apple didn't want to ruin this effort with white noise.
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon? Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
How about using these low-power CPU's in desktop computers ? Without going in the matter, it could be seen as an useless idea : why put a less powerfull computer ("only" 500 Mhz) in a desktop PC ?
Mobile computers have one feature in common with iMac's : they haven't any fan. The current trends in computer is the more fans in the box, the better computer (see this recent Slashdot Poll, too). It's usual to find one big fan for the power supply, one or two of them on the CPU and on the video card, and even on the HD, the CD/DVD player, and on the CDR.
It makes very noisy computers ! Now, I've noticed that the evening, just after turning off my computer and calming down in a quiet room, my ears continue to burden, just as they continue to buzz after a hard rock concert (just a slight exaggeration, here). This can't be good. Really, that noise annoys me.
That's why I'd like to see low-power CPU's in fanless desktop PC's, just like in iMacs. I, for one, just don't care about speed on my desktop PC : my old P-II 266 Mhz is enough for my daily needs.
(And I'm not even talking about how inelegant is the principle of fans itself.)
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon? Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
May I know why this guy's posting was moderated as Flamebait ? He posted his idea on the subject and it seems to me that it's a valid point.
I'd like to add that I don't like the idea of an identification system to listen downloaded music : it's a move in the wrong direction.
The present system of audio CDs, which you buy once and on which you have property rights (usus, fructus, abusus) is far better than those fuzzy rights. For me it's OK to buy music I like, but please, don't turn my music experience in a techno-nightmare.
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon? Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
Now, AMD have x86-64/Sledegammer sitting there - fully backwards compatible, but extended. Also, if current form continues, better bang per buck.
AMD has gained some credibility in the last months, but I really doubt they are strong enough to dictate the plateform the average Joe will use in the future.
Now, who's _honestly_ going to buy something that's slower for the price, and where the performance sucks even more for everything you've got right now - the only benefit is with stuff months down the line?
Slower and sucking performance... That's another big assumption;) Moreover, who still cares about real, measured performance ? The recent 1Ghz hoopla (even if it eventually turned in the favor of AMD) shows that what's really important is the marketing, the eye candy. Those chips were 'simple' Athlons/PIII's, but 1Ghz sounded sooooo sweet.
I first though about writing 2 lines about AMD in my original posting, but the topic has been discussed so many times before : we finally have the possibility to get rid of this x86 mess. It took Intel 15 years to give us a non-x86 processor. I really hope the market won't perpetuate x86's hegemony by buying Sledgehammers. When Intel decided to help porting Linux to the IA64, they made it clear that open source OSes can help the transition : when most of the applications just need a recompilation to work on a new platform, the pain of migration disappears magically !
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon? Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
Very unlikely... Why would they kill their own business (almost only hardware) for such a risky move ? Who would buy Macintosh hardware if cheap PC clones running MacOS would do the job ? OK, the Mac architecture is better than PC's one, but the percentage of people who really care about that is marginal.
Moreover, you're talking about x86. Think about it : if MS is ever split (which I really doubt), it will not be before 2001 or even 2002. By that time (I hope I'm not thinking wishfully), x86 will be out and replaced by the Intel 64 bits Itanium architecture. Would Apple issue a MacOS X version just for old computers ? MacOS' market was always high end desktop machines, why would they suddenly care about oldest PC's ?
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon? Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
OK... Maybe it's my understanding of the word viable which is biased, but for me, it means has a good potential.
The article is about the time when Microsoft will be split in two parts. Which won't happen before a certain amount of time. If it happens at all (they will appeal).
BeOS, BeOS applications, Linux, Linux applications, in one or two years, will hopefully have matured and won't be viable anymore, but usable .
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon? Have you checked out BadtechThe daily online cartoon?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the mono versions of these discs are quite interesting, because they are in no way 'Left + Right speakers sticked together' versions.
Remember the LP's albums from the late 60's were the first to use the stereo technology. As many new technologies, this technology was at firtst misused and misunderstood: nobody knew how to use it well and often did an awful work with it (think: the drums left, all the other tracks right).
Take for instance Jefferson Airplane's masterpiece 'Surrealistic Pillow' (1967): the new, remastered edition comes with both mixes (on only one CD, though). You can hear that the mono mix is by far superior to the stereo mix, because, as stated in the sleeve notes, the sound engineer completely misunderstood what stereo was about. He added tons of flanger and 'cool' effects to the music, which just sounded awful in stereo. Errors he didn't make on the mono mix.
Another exemple is The Beatles's 'Sgt. Pepper's' (1967, too): the mono mix was made by the Beatles themselves and the stereo mix was left to some obscure sound engineer: so, the mono mix is really the way the artists intended it to be heard !
Old timers can remember about Executor, made by a little New-Mexican company named ARDI.
It featured a quick 68k emulator, and it was the only 'legal' Mac emulator available on PC: they did re-write most of Apple's code (the ROM and the OS itself), allowing them not only to be free from Apple's code but to make it really fast too, by having rewritten the system calls in native x86 code.
I'd sure love to see this little company putting together a G3/G4 emulator. Wishful thinking, I know.
Anyway, if an iMac emulator appears, I hope those cheap multi-gigahertz AMD boxes will be able to emulate a little G3 on inexpensive hardware: finally all those x86 OS X curious, not wanting to buy a Mac because of its price will have a way to play with OS X... And to upgrade with the real thing!
There a some misconceptions in your post :
- Infact I can probably run macos9 apps faster in linux then MacOSX : The Classic environment in Mac OS X is build on the same idea than mac-on-linux. The speed of Classic apps is the same as mac-on-linux's speed, ie. near 100%, provided you have enough memory.
- WIth Linux, I can run MS Word, Excell, IE, quake3, and even java : really, these apps are far better under OS X than under OS 9 : Microsoft did a good job porting its Office suite to OS X. Quake 3 works well too (never tried it, but often heard it) and Java is well integrated in OS X
- I don't believe X is even supported under OSX : XDarwin 4.2 works very well under OS X, in two screen modes : 'Rootless', where the Mac Apps and the X apps coexist on the screen and 'Full screen' (you have to switch between Mac OS X and X thanks to a key combination).
- OSX is slower according to all the benchmarks I have seen comparing it with linux : I think that OS X's window server/manager have still to be optimized and therefore are to blame for the slowness of OS X, so this comparison is not really accurate.
I'm not a Mac OS X zealot, I know it isn't perfect, but it's worth the look. Really, go and try it, you'll be surprised.
Having a common interface to do both your display rendering and your print rendering makes sense, and Microsoft didn't come up with the idea. I'm not sure who did, but NeXT was touting "display postscript" a very long time ago.
And now NeXT's son, Mac OS X, uses the son of postscript (PDF) for the display (through 'Quartz' technology) and the printing. True WYSIWYG.
Hey Apple, if you listen ? You provide iMovie free, you provide iTune free, why not writting iHyperCard and provide it free of charge for everybody with every Macintosh, with every MacOS X? You already provide complete professional development tools... That would be a great asset for you.
(and opening the file format would be the cherry on the top, for sure)
Why not ? Simply because it goes against Apple's policy of deliberately killing legacy applications/hardware, hoping that, in the long run, they'll build better products.
They take the opposite way of Wintel. Wintel loves legacy. You know, this patched 8-bit processor and this patched 8-bit OS which runs on the majority of desktop machines.
OTOH, Apple gently killed the 680x0 arch, is willing to kill the Classic MacOS and its classic tools (HyperCard being one of them). It's the only good reason I can think of to explain why they don't release specs. and/or source code for HyperCard.
No flames please, I'm not saying they do right. I just try to explain why they won't (probably) open HyperCard's source.
Stéphane
I noticed in the last few months that Macintoshes, PPC's, LinuxPPC and all are in the road of becoming nerds machine.
Being myself a big fan of this stuff, I'm quite happy to see geeks realize there's life after Intel/AMD.
Now, what is the reason of this move (in the right direction) ? Is it because of Apple producing damn good hardware (God knows my iBook rules)? Or because of MacOS X being built on a sane basis? Or something else?
And... Congrats to Jason for all he has been achieving these last months.
Stéphane
Totally Offtopic Side Note 1: I find it amusing that LinuxToday.com.au snatched my X icon: I always thought it was probably the crappiest Slashdot icon, and I never dreamed anyone would want to take it. (...)
;)
Hey! the crappiest Slashdot icon used to be the WINE icon. I was going to post a comment about that, but I first checked that it still wasn't changed.
And guess what? It is!!!
What a beautiful day !
Stéphane
Actually, it's voilà...
Just wanted to post a pedantic comment.
Stéphane
In fact I've never heard it called Chunnel at al here in Belgium (a little, partly french-speaking country next to France).
It's always called here le tunnel sous la Manche which I can safely translate to "the tunnel under the Channel".
Stéphane
Oh my God !
EMM386, MSCDEX, sound & mouse drivers !
Memmaker was my favourite game... I once did a very good score of 614 Ko with all drivers loaded (on a 486 : on a PI, my best score was only 592 Ko IIRC).
I had forgotten memmaker. I really miss memmaker. Sure. Really.
Stéphane
1. Qwartz 2. MacOS X 3. IE 5 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. Better than anything you've seen 7. Yes 8. Yes 9. MS-Office 2001 10. It's X (=10) :o)
I think you were describing MacOS X, werent't you ?
Not for Christmas, but maybe for Valentine's day.
Stéphane
Stéphane
IE 5.0 for MacOS is superior to IE 5.x on Win32 on many aspects. It is often cited as an the best browser ever made.
.0 version and, almost six months after it's release, I'd be happy to see a .01 revision) and it is slow as hell when rendering some document (try a slashdot comments page fully threaded).
;)
It's standard-compliants, stable, etc. It still has some bugs though (it's a
If MS releases IE for Linux, chances are it will be a POS. But chances are equal that they will do quite a good job on it. I know what they did for Solaris (a fuzzy port of the Win32 API to make the Win32 source work on it), but for the Macintosh, they wrote a whole new application from scratch. Pray !
Stéphane
That's funny I see this thread today, since I had a discussion a few days ago with some important ISP here...
When I started publishing web page here (I live in Belgium, EU), every vHost had his own IP.
In the meantime, I moved my web pages to web hostings to Jumpline, who give an excellent service and an IP per domain name. It was a lot cheaper service thant EU's one at the time.
A few days ago, I had the discussion with 3 of the most important ISP in Belgium: for some reason, I wanted to vhost my pages in Belgium again (the price is now roughly the same than in the US). My idea didn't last: name-based hosting is the rule here, and they looked at me as if I was a martian when I told them I wanted my own IP by vHost.
In a more general context, I'd really like to see an quick adoption of IPv6: more and more ISP's here rely on NAT (whith all the problems it can give) and host hundreds of sites by IP.
That's definitely not a Good Thing.
Just my thoughts
Stefano
--
I'd appreciate to read some specs about that little thing: not a word about them, just two games screenshots.
/.: is it a pocket SNES? Or just some hardware that has about the same abilities than the SNES, but has nothing in common with it?
Perhaps I've missed something, but I can't remember having read something about it on
What about battery life ? Technology used for the screen?
Stephane
Maybe some offers of desktop machines powered by these puppies would help their acceptance on the mainstream market. Why are they so much geared for the 'alternative' markets (note the quotes) of (ultra-)portables ?
My point is that these processors (on paper) seem to have a potential as the part of a 100% quiet PC : since they don't produce as much heat as other x86 and compatibles, they could live without a fan, saving our mistreated ears and nerves.
I'd be very interested in building a Transmeta-powered machine for my personal use, but -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there's no desktop motherboard available. That's a shame. Besides the fact that they would be more expensive than an Intel or AMD processor of similar performance, are there good reasons why we don't see any desktop offer ? Any clue about a mobo manufacturer who has plans on supporting these ?
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
True to previous rumors, the mouse does not sport a traditional mouse button. Instead, sources said, the user simply applies pressure to to front of the unit, at which time resistance will give way allowing the mouse, as a whole, to tilt closer to the underlying surface, producing what is currently known as a mouse click.
Will Apple finally understand that a second button can be really useful for a whole range of tasks, and send a different signal to the computer whether the right and the left 'non-button' is pressed ?
And, even better... A 'non-wheel' support sure would be could too.
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Some years ago, I read in a magazine that in the future, even microwave ovens would be connected to the Internet.
Indeed... this monstruosity looks just like my microwave oven.
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
or SMB, not a standard but would require no extra software for windows users?
Is the average user computer savvy enough to understand how to share a directory from his PC HD ? From that point of view, a dedicated and simplified FTP server included on a CD found in the box would be easier.
I know Macs have some implementation of SMB (I don't know what it's called).
I think that "Dave" is an SMB server for the Macintosh.
Another question that comes to mind is : is it easy for Dell to implement an SMB client ? An FTP client would sure be easiest to implement, wouldn't it ?
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
I was wondering about that while reading the article. The best way to make it simple, IMHO, would be to use the FTP protocol. At least one implementation of an FTP server is freely available on every OS I can think of. Moreover, it could be packaged with a simple, made on purpose FTP server for those Windows people who don't want the pain of installing a non dedicated FTP server on their W98 box.
Now, the problem is that it isn't the original aim of the FTP protocol at all. It would certainly not be the most efficient protocol to serve this purpose, but we are talking about 128-192 Kbits / sec, i.e. virtually nothing. And it would make things so simple !
Does anybody think about inherent limits of the FTP protocol which would make it really incompatible with such a system ? I sure can stream mp3's by FTP from my 10 Mbits-connected-P100 Linux box so it can be so hard to conceive (I mean, I could do it, but I use Samba for this).
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
In fact, iMac is a generic name for several different translucent Macintoshes with a built-in screen. The first iMac generation had a fan, newer ones haven't any.
Apple has always had a policy of designing silent machines. IIRC, it's partly due to Steve Job's aversion for those noisy machines.
The new iMacs, with other improvements, introduced a new sound system, known as the Harman/Kardon Odyssey audio system, which gives them an unprecedented sound quality : Apple didn't want to ruin this effort with white noise.
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
How about using these low-power CPU's in desktop computers ? Without going in the matter, it could be seen as an useless idea : why put a less powerfull computer ("only" 500 Mhz) in a desktop PC ?
Mobile computers have one feature in common with iMac's : they haven't any fan. The current trends in computer is the more fans in the box, the better computer (see this recent Slashdot Poll, too). It's usual to find one big fan for the power supply, one or two of them on the CPU and on the video card, and even on the HD, the CD/DVD player, and on the CDR.
It makes very noisy computers ! Now, I've noticed that the evening, just after turning off my computer and calming down in a quiet room, my ears continue to burden, just as they continue to buzz after a hard rock concert (just a slight exaggeration, here). This can't be good. Really, that noise annoys me.
That's why I'd like to see low-power CPU's in fanless desktop PC's, just like in iMacs. I, for one, just don't care about speed on my desktop PC : my old P-II 266 Mhz is enough for my daily needs.
(And I'm not even talking about how inelegant is the principle of fans itself.)
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Dear Mr. Moderator,
May I know why this guy's posting was moderated as Flamebait ? He posted his idea on the subject and it seems to me that it's a valid point.
I'd like to add that I don't like the idea of an identification system to listen downloaded music : it's a move in the wrong direction.
The present system of audio CDs, which you buy once and on which you have property rights (usus, fructus, abusus) is far better than those fuzzy rights. For me it's OK to buy music I like, but please, don't turn my music experience in a techno-nightmare.
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Now, AMD have x86-64/Sledegammer sitting there - fully backwards compatible, but extended. Also, if current form continues, better bang per buck.
;)
AMD has gained some credibility in the last months, but I really doubt they are strong enough to dictate the plateform the average Joe will use in the future.
Now, who's _honestly_ going to buy something that's slower for the price, and where the performance sucks even more for everything you've got right now - the only benefit is with stuff months down the line?
Slower and sucking performance... That's another big assumption
Moreover, who still cares about real, measured performance ? The recent 1Ghz hoopla (even if it eventually turned in the favor of AMD) shows that what's really important is the marketing, the eye candy. Those chips were 'simple' Athlons/PIII's, but 1Ghz sounded sooooo sweet.
I first though about writing 2 lines about AMD in my original posting, but the topic has been discussed so many times before : we finally have the possibility to get rid of this x86 mess. It took Intel 15 years to give us a non-x86 processor. I really hope the market won't perpetuate x86's hegemony by buying Sledgehammers.
When Intel decided to help porting Linux to the IA64, they made it clear that open source OSes can help the transition : when most of the applications just need a recompilation to work on a new platform, the pain of migration disappears magically !
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
If M$ gets split, Apple will port its OS to x86.
Very unlikely... Why would they kill their own business (almost only hardware) for such a risky move ? Who would buy Macintosh hardware if cheap PC clones running MacOS would do the job ? OK, the Mac architecture is better than PC's one, but the percentage of people who really care about that is marginal.
Moreover, you're talking about x86. Think about it : if MS is ever split (which I really doubt), it will not be before 2001 or even 2002. By that time (I hope I'm not thinking wishfully), x86 will be out and replaced by the Intel 64 bits Itanium architecture. Would Apple issue a MacOS X version just for old computers ? MacOS' market was always high end desktop machines, why would they suddenly care about oldest PC's ?
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
OK... Maybe it's my understanding of the word viable which is biased, but for me, it means has a good potential .
The article is about the time when Microsoft will be split in two parts. Which won't happen before a certain amount of time. If it happens at all (they will appeal).
BeOS, BeOS applications, Linux, Linux applications, in one or two years, will hopefully have matured and won't be viable anymore, but usable .
Stéphane
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?
Have you checked out Badtech The daily online cartoon?