is that a healthy percentage of us hate Microsoft and their products. We especially hate the coercive element - the thought that we are "forced" to use them because all of society does.
Because of this, any effort made by Microsoft to monopolize yet another market makes us feel nauseous. Thus, our desire to see Microsoft fail.
I think the big problem this presents is the amount of power it gives Microsoft over the game companies.
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with Microsoft running my game server code for me; as others have mentioned, they probably won't do that good a job. And who will the customers blame? Me.
Microsoft's strategy is much higher risk than Sony's. Sony says "Let's put this out and see what people do with it." Microsoft says "Let's build an enormous system that hopefully people will use.
According to an excellent Salon.com article, the Xbox has little in the way of compelling games to differentiate itself from Sony or Nintendo.
The Register is right about one thing: Salex of the Xbox have been dropping. That makes me give their opinions the benefit of the doubt. Just because they're biased doesn't make them wrong.
This is like saying I have a 100mbps network at home because I have a 100mbps hub connected. I still get only 384k to the Internet, because that's the speed of my DSL.
They're probably running this off a T1, and if so, obviously you're not really going to get more than a T1 worth of bandwidth, and that's if you're the only person using the network.
I've been to Pittsburgh, and they're going to have to open some half-decent restaurants and lease a weather changing machine before they'd have a chance at getting me to live there.
Microsoft's own license agreement says they are not liable for anything save defective media. As long as the software installs on your computer, you're on the hook.
And, before you say this is simply outrageous conduct, I fear it has to be that way. The viability of free software depends on the viability of near-identical clauses in the GPL, after all.
To take a non-MS-related example, let's say my copy of Final Cut Pro just crashed and I lost an hour's worth of work. If everyone who bought the product was able to sue over problems like this, Apple simply could not afford the contingent liability associated with selling software.
The technology simply doesn't exist to make today's increasingly complex programs 100% reliable. We can improve, yes, and we must. But our whole industry would collapse in lawsuits if companies were liable beyond the purchase price for packaged software problems.
Of course Microsoft software is particularly notorious for this, thanks to its over-complex way of dealing with simple problems. Because of that I simply don't buy or use Microsoft software to any significant extent. I don't rely on it for my business, so it doesn't matter that it's junk.
More people should do the same, and I hope this and similar stories will make people consider alternatives more seriously.
My company agreed with me when I proposed converting virtually everything our employees see to Linux, but on one thing they stood firm: They really, really wanted this phone system.
It's called Interactive Intelligence, and it effectively converts a PC with speakers into a phone. Its great ability is that you can listen in to telemarketing conversations (vital in our business, sadly), get reams of statistics about how our people are doing, and so on.
It has one flaw: It runs under Windows. You have to use a Windows client. It has a Windows server. And it integrates with Outlook, so everyone has to use Outlook for their email. For these reasons, I was knee-jerk against it, violently so. But I was overruled, and we bought it.
We've had it for about a year and a half, and about a week ago, it caught a perfectly ordinary Windows worm. It apparently arrived through an email, spread through our network, and bam! Bye bye phone system.
Our IT guy spent 72 sleepless hours cleaning up after it.
I laughed. Well, if anyone else tries putting their phone system on Windows, now I know what to tell them. "It's not that Windows is bad, I'm as open-minded as anyone, but it sure is one heck of a security risk..."
Do you know how much the margin was? I would think of $50 as being pretty thin - retail markups are normally around the 30-50% range.
I was dealing with retail markup for games assuming they were all made by Microsoft, in which case Microsoft gets the whole cost of the game after retail markup instead of just $5-$10 per game. So I assumed they would get roughly $50 of the $100 charged for the game packs.
The article notes that they get $5-$10 royalty on each game, so if there's a pack including three games, the most that would have helped them is $30. That's not going to plug a $90 hole.
You're also leaving out retailer margin entirely. The retailer probably takes at least $50, so the net to Microsoft would have been $250 or less. Add up the game pack with about 50% margin and you probably give MS about $50 more overall. So the net to MS is back to $299, with the product itself costing $389 to produce, and the game pack maybe adding another $30-odd of material and amortized development costs. And this is only if all the games on offer are MS-developed games, which I don't think is the case.
So in fact, once we balance out the game packs, our scenerio is a little worse than what the article claimed, since they left out retailer markup entirely.
Make no mistake: This is not good news for our Redmond pals. They tried to make a PC into a game console, without realizing the high cost of PC components would kill them.
In short, they had too much faith in the PC business model, since it had served them so well in the past.
He obviously confused mobile and desktop processor prices. I don't have any figures myself, but if the G4/800 is $550 in the laptop version, it's $225 in the desktop version (per his statement that desktops are about half the price). So the desktop G4/800 just squeezes itself into viability here, with its presence in the top iMac.
If his prices are accurate - and they seem to be, in view of what Apple charges for the finished products - it's pretty obvious that we won't see G4 iBooks any time soon, regardless of how much Steve wants to get rid of the moldy old thing.
D
Do you really need 32mb VRAM at 1024x768?
on
Apple Updates iBook
·
· Score: 2
Is it not possible that 32mb of VRAM would be entirely wasted on a system capable of no greater than 1024x768 resolution, even with Quartz Extreme?
True, the iMac has the same resolution and 32MB VRAM, but I would assume that's mainly for gaming; I would not expect gaming to be a priority for iBook users.
I remember when upgrading my beige PowerMac G3 to 6mb VRAM gave me all the VRAM I thought we'd ever need. I'm going to guess that even with Quartz Extreme, 16MB would be ample at the resolutions iBooks run at.
Otherwise, you'd need tons more VRAM if you ran a Cinema Display or Cinema HD Display, and I see nothing to that effect in the specifications.
If you keep anything remotely like an open mind, and if you're not obsessed with the minutae of software licenses, MacOS X is the way to go.
Why?
* No Windows licensing hassles. * A beautiful, tastefully designed environment running on slick hardware that was obviously designed to be appealing instead of assembled from a randomly selected bunch of the cheapest possible parts. (You can get this same feel with Alienware and the like, but their computers are actually more expensive than Apple's!) * Gorgeous fonts, the computer world's easiest to read text * Virtually all commercial applications of any substance are available, including stalwarts like Office and Photoshop. * Virtually all open source applications are available, including stalwarts like emacs and the Gimp. * Finally, if dabbling in video appeals to you at all, you gotta get Final Cut Pro, available only on the Mac.
You are right that this is the main weakness of Linux, silly as it sounds. It's the main reason I basically switched all my home computing to the Macintosh running MacOS X in the last year.
If you want beautiful fonts, that's what you need. Nothing else compares.
AppleWorks reads typical office documents, but has trouble with the really esoteric features, such as multiple columns and the like. Sadly, I wound up purchasing Mac office for that reason.
I remember trying StarOffice and thinking it was almost eerily like Microsoft Office. It actually was such a close resemblance that I hated the thing.
Because of its processor power and DDR memory. There's no other Mac using DDR memory at present.
That's why I said I would most wait until mid-year where Apple will almost certainly show improved desktops.
But if I had to buy a video editing machine now, it would probably give me better performance than any other Mac. (Probably is due to video card issues - I'm not sure if the AGP is "true" AGP or not, and I'd certainly research that before buying).
If you're a heavy video editor and want access to a machine that's super fast and has proper cooling for lots of drives, this might be a really appealing workstation.
I'm thinking of this myself, but I'm planning to wait until the midyear introduction of new G4s. They'll probably put the best of what they've developed here into the new systems plus a faster processor.
Just because it's called a server doesn't mean you need to use it as one.
I think it's worth noting, though, that almost no Macs purchased in the last year or two can use Quartz Extreme to its fullest potential because that requires 32mb VRAM.
Apparently performance improvements go way, way beyond Quartz Extreme since reports are saying the system's fast even on G3 iMacs with minimal VRAM.
Curiously enough, it can use variable width fonts, but they render in a similar way to Carbon applications instead of Cocoa - in other words, badly. So Optima (my favourite font when rendered well) still looks ugly, but Palatino isn't half bad.
Thanks for the link - it definitely helped get my MacOS X emacs use out of the stone age:-).
What does the content of goatse.cx have to do with goatsex, anyway? I mean, I go there looking forward to seeing a novel form of kinky sex, and all I see is a very boring, all too well known form of kinky sex.
Any chance of a Cocoa emacs or xemacs with variable width font support from Apple?
I don't like running emacs from the terminal, and running xemacs through the integrated X-Window system just shows how shoddy the fonts are that we've been tolerating for so many years:-(.
I'd even be willing to pay for that (although I shouldn't have admitted that or RMS would have me shot). I know the standard answer is to dive into the code and do it yourself, but I'm simply not familiar enough with emacs or x-windows internals to give it a shot.
Just to clarify this a bit, yes, you can get a new Mac running MacOS X and the speech functions are still there. I tried them and they do work, although talking takes a lot more time than typing, at least for me, so they had little more than novelty value for me.
(You didn't mention MacOS X, and of course X is very appealing to geeks thanks to the Unix background, so it would probably be better for him to buy a system running X so he could play with both X and the text to speech features.)
I am the head of the custom applications department at a 100-person company. I am also the department's sole employee, so I can call myself anything I want:-).
When I was first employed, we had a Windows-based system that did contact management, a clunky order entry system used only by clerks, and a half-done cold fusion application that was supposed to be used for online ordering, but in practice simply did not work. (It took 4 seconds to search for a part).
I was hired to shepherd the online ordering application to completion, but I quickly realized that you could use one for internal ordering as well. So I rewrote it in Linux, made it efficient, and added design features so both salespeople and customers could easily enter orders. But the contact management system was still not working well, and it integrated poorly with the new ordering system.
So I eventally convinced the company to bite the bullet; I wrote a contact management system for the salespeople that was browser-based and (of course) integrated perfectly with the online ordering system. So now salespeople have their contact management and ordering done with one integrated system that works very well.
Unfortunately our IT person (who handles the Windows machines) can't be convinced to switch away. But all they do is run a browser anyway, so his administrative load is significantly reduced. They also use Outlook for email, but that was his choice, not mine.
So now we have mainly happy employees running a system that's based on Linux and can be updated and improved continuously without strain. Believe me, I couldn't have single-handedly developed the same thing under Windows. It could have been done, but it would have taken a lot more time and a lot of help. (Can you imagine installing the silly thing on 70-odd PCs?)
In short, a browser-based application is faster to develop, more efficient to deploy, and just plain works better than what Microsoft is pushing. And I'm proud to say I haven't used one piece of Microsoft software to develop the system - it's strictly gcc, perl, mySQL and a little PHP.
I may be prejudiced - heck, I am, of course - but browser-based software using a Linux back end just plain works. There's no reason in the world not to use it, and it has the nice bonus of being compatible with any platform on the planet - I've used it with Linux, MacOS 9, MacOS X, and even an SGI.
I have the predecessor to this model, so I have a few comments.
The movie player works fine, although the only movie I loaded into it was a totally baffling promotion for the AIBO. A friend of mine said "What's that?" when I played it for her. She thought that if it was advertising, it needed some SERIOUS re-working.
Of course the movie player isn't terribly useful due to the low memory capacity of the device (16mb if my memory serves). I think the minute or so long AIBO movie was about a megabyte. I'd count the movie player as a curiosity and nothing more.
The high-resolution display is simply fantastic. I gather from the review that this is essentially the same display, but with added resolution on the bottom, where the permanently set up input area is on mine.
All it takes to sell the CLIE over its Palm competition is one look at that display. The CLIE also has a "real metal" feel which looks conspicuously high-quality compared to the plasticky Palm and Handspring models.
I have no doubt at all that the keyboard would really help make this unit easier to use. I am okay at Graffiti, but still find the motions required to write akward. This might be because I've used a keyboard for my entire life, though; regular handwriting is just as annoying for me.
All in all, this is a real wake-up call for Palm, which has undeniably been caught napping. I look forward to giving this device a try at my local Fry's soon.
Gray Davis' total campaign warchest is over $35 million, and he's actively seeking out more at all times.
California has some of the nation's most expensive media markets, and a population that's not terribly enthused about politics.
As a result, heavy advertising is the name of the game - and it's expensive to the extreme.
D
I have the same machine you do
on
Apple Drops Mac OS 9
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Except when loading up 10,000 Mozilla/OmniWeb/IE windows, OSX works very fast for me. I don't think there will be that much difference with Jaguar if most of the emphasis is on increasing graphics speed.
When I load up loads of windows, for some reason the menus get sluggish. I think this may be about the memory the web browsers are using as much as anything else, but it's odd considering that I have 1.5gb RAM.
The new 1ghz system is only about 30% faster than the dual 450. So I wouldn't worry about getting rid of the dual 450 just yet.
Slashdot Mirror
is that a healthy percentage of us hate Microsoft and their products. We especially hate the coercive element - the thought that we are "forced" to use them because all of society does.
Because of this, any effort made by Microsoft to monopolize yet another market makes us feel nauseous. Thus, our desire to see Microsoft fail.
D
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with Microsoft running my game server code for me; as others have mentioned, they probably won't do that good a job. And who will the customers blame? Me.
Microsoft's strategy is much higher risk than Sony's. Sony says "Let's put this out and see what people do with it." Microsoft says "Let's build an enormous system that hopefully people will use.
According to an excellent Salon.com article, the Xbox has little in the way of compelling games to differentiate itself from Sony or Nintendo.
The Register is right about one thing: Salex of the Xbox have been dropping. That makes me give their opinions the benefit of the doubt. Just because they're biased doesn't make them wrong.
D
This is like saying I have a 100mbps network at home because I have a 100mbps hub connected. I still get only 384k to the Internet, because that's the speed of my DSL.
They're probably running this off a T1, and if so, obviously you're not really going to get more than a T1 worth of bandwidth, and that's if you're the only person using the network.
I've been to Pittsburgh, and they're going to have to open some half-decent restaurants and lease a weather changing machine before they'd have a chance at getting me to live there.
D
Microsoft's own license agreement says they are not liable for anything save defective media. As long as the software installs on your computer, you're on the hook.
And, before you say this is simply outrageous conduct, I fear it has to be that way. The viability of free software depends on the viability of near-identical clauses in the GPL, after all.
To take a non-MS-related example, let's say my copy of Final Cut Pro just crashed and I lost an hour's worth of work. If everyone who bought the product was able to sue over problems like this, Apple simply could not afford the contingent liability associated with selling software.
The technology simply doesn't exist to make today's increasingly complex programs 100% reliable. We can improve, yes, and we must. But our whole industry would collapse in lawsuits if companies were liable beyond the purchase price for packaged software problems.
Of course Microsoft software is particularly notorious for this, thanks to its over-complex way of dealing with simple problems. Because of that I simply don't buy or use Microsoft software to any significant extent. I don't rely on it for my business, so it doesn't matter that it's junk.
More people should do the same, and I hope this and similar stories will make people consider alternatives more seriously.
D
My company agreed with me when I proposed converting virtually everything our employees see to Linux, but on one thing they stood firm: They really, really wanted this phone system.
..."
It's called Interactive Intelligence, and it effectively converts a PC with speakers into a phone. Its great ability is that you can listen in to telemarketing conversations (vital in our business, sadly), get reams of statistics about how our people are doing, and so on.
It has one flaw: It runs under Windows. You have to use a Windows client. It has a Windows server. And it integrates with Outlook, so everyone has to use Outlook for their email. For these reasons, I was knee-jerk against it, violently so. But I was overruled, and we bought it.
We've had it for about a year and a half, and about a week ago, it caught a perfectly ordinary Windows worm. It apparently arrived through an email, spread through our network, and bam! Bye bye phone system.
Our IT guy spent 72 sleepless hours cleaning up after it.
I laughed. Well, if anyone else tries putting their phone system on Windows, now I know what to tell them. "It's not that Windows is bad, I'm as open-minded as anyone, but it sure is one heck of a security risk
D
Do you know how much the margin was? I would think of $50 as being pretty thin - retail markups are normally around the 30-50% range.
I was dealing with retail markup for games assuming they were all made by Microsoft, in which case Microsoft gets the whole cost of the game after retail markup instead of just $5-$10 per game. So I assumed they would get roughly $50 of the $100 charged for the game packs.
D
Not unless they're Microsoft's games.
The article notes that they get $5-$10 royalty on each game, so if there's a pack including three games, the most that would have helped them is $30. That's not going to plug a $90 hole.
You're also leaving out retailer margin entirely. The retailer probably takes at least $50, so the net to Microsoft would have been $250 or less. Add up the game pack with about 50% margin and you probably give MS about $50 more overall. So the net to MS is back to $299, with the product itself costing $389 to produce, and the game pack maybe adding another $30-odd of material and amortized development costs. And this is only if all the games on offer are MS-developed games, which I don't think is the case.
So in fact, once we balance out the game packs, our scenerio is a little worse than what the article claimed, since they left out retailer markup entirely.
Make no mistake: This is not good news for our Redmond pals. They tried to make a PC into a game console, without realizing the high cost of PC components would kill them.
In short, they had too much faith in the PC business model, since it had served them so well in the past.
D
He obviously confused mobile and desktop processor prices. I don't have any figures myself, but if the G4/800 is $550 in the laptop version, it's $225 in the desktop version (per his statement that desktops are about half the price). So the desktop G4/800 just squeezes itself into viability here, with its presence in the top iMac.
If his prices are accurate - and they seem to be, in view of what Apple charges for the finished products - it's pretty obvious that we won't see G4 iBooks any time soon, regardless of how much Steve wants to get rid of the moldy old thing.
D
Is it not possible that 32mb of VRAM would be entirely wasted on a system capable of no greater than 1024x768 resolution, even with Quartz Extreme?
True, the iMac has the same resolution and 32MB VRAM, but I would assume that's mainly for gaming; I would not expect gaming to be a priority for iBook users.
I remember when upgrading my beige PowerMac G3 to 6mb VRAM gave me all the VRAM I thought we'd ever need. I'm going to guess that even with Quartz Extreme, 16MB would be ample at the resolutions iBooks run at.
Otherwise, you'd need tons more VRAM if you ran a Cinema Display or Cinema HD Display, and I see nothing to that effect in the specifications.
Of course if I'm wrong, I'd welcome corrections.
D
In a word, yes.
:-).
Although I suppose your post is satire
If you keep anything remotely like an open mind, and if you're not obsessed with the minutae of software licenses, MacOS X is the way to go.
Why?
* No Windows licensing hassles.
* A beautiful, tastefully designed environment running on slick hardware that was obviously designed to be appealing instead of assembled from a randomly selected bunch of the cheapest possible parts. (You can get this same feel with Alienware and the like, but their computers are actually more expensive than Apple's!)
* Gorgeous fonts, the computer world's easiest to read text
* Virtually all commercial applications of any substance are available, including stalwarts like Office and Photoshop.
* Virtually all open source applications are available, including stalwarts like emacs and the Gimp.
* Finally, if dabbling in video appeals to you at all, you gotta get Final Cut Pro, available only on the Mac.
In a word, it really is the best of both worlds.
D
You are right that this is the main weakness of Linux, silly as it sounds. It's the main reason I basically switched all my home computing to the Macintosh running MacOS X in the last year.
If you want beautiful fonts, that's what you need. Nothing else compares.
AppleWorks reads typical office documents, but has trouble with the really esoteric features, such as multiple columns and the like. Sadly, I wound up purchasing Mac office for that reason.
I remember trying StarOffice and thinking it was almost eerily like Microsoft Office. It actually was such a close resemblance that I hated the thing.
D
Because of its processor power and DDR memory. There's no other Mac using DDR memory at present.
That's why I said I would most wait until mid-year where Apple will almost certainly show improved desktops.
But if I had to buy a video editing machine now, it would probably give me better performance than any other Mac. (Probably is due to video card issues - I'm not sure if the AGP is "true" AGP or not, and I'd certainly research that before buying).
D
If you're a heavy video editor and want access to a machine that's super fast and has proper cooling for lots of drives, this might be a really appealing workstation.
I'm thinking of this myself, but I'm planning to wait until the midyear introduction of new G4s. They'll probably put the best of what they've developed here into the new systems plus a faster processor.
Just because it's called a server doesn't mean you need to use it as one.
D
I think it's worth noting, though, that almost no Macs purchased in the last year or two can use Quartz Extreme to its fullest potential because that requires 32mb VRAM.
Apparently performance improvements go way, way beyond Quartz Extreme since reports are saying the system's fast even on G3 iMacs with minimal VRAM.
D
What third-party applications haven't worked for you?
That seemed like the only probematical part of the report, so it got me curious.
D
Hey, thanks!
:-).
Curiously enough, it can use variable width fonts, but they render in a similar way to Carbon applications instead of Cocoa - in other words, badly. So Optima (my favourite font when rendered well) still looks ugly, but Palatino isn't half bad.
Thanks for the link - it definitely helped get my MacOS X emacs use out of the stone age
D
What does the content of goatse.cx have to do with goatsex, anyway? I mean, I go there looking forward to seeing a novel form of kinky sex, and all I see is a very boring, all too well known form of kinky sex.
Pathetic.
D
Any chance of a Cocoa emacs or xemacs with variable width font support from Apple?
:-(.
I don't like running emacs from the terminal, and running xemacs through the integrated X-Window system just shows how shoddy the fonts are that we've been tolerating for so many years
I'd even be willing to pay for that (although I shouldn't have admitted that or RMS would have me shot). I know the standard answer is to dive into the code and do it yourself, but I'm simply not familiar enough with emacs or x-windows internals to give it a shot.
D
By catering to alpha geeks, they can get lots of wonderful new applications. There are many great things that were done on Linux.
People need the big guys (Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, After Effects, Office, etc), but there's plenty of room for the little ones, too.
So yes, what Jobs is doing here has a strategic purpose, just as making the GUI super easy to use does.
D
Just to clarify this a bit, yes, you can get a new Mac running MacOS X and the speech functions are still there. I tried them and they do work, although talking takes a lot more time than typing, at least for me, so they had little more than novelty value for me.
(You didn't mention MacOS X, and of course X is very appealing to geeks thanks to the Unix background, so it would probably be better for him to buy a system running X so he could play with both X and the text to speech features.)
D
I am the head of the custom applications department at a 100-person company. I am also the department's sole employee, so I can call myself anything I want :-).
When I was first employed, we had a Windows-based system that did contact management, a clunky order entry system used only by clerks, and a half-done cold fusion application that was supposed to be used for online ordering, but in practice simply did not work. (It took 4 seconds to search for a part).
I was hired to shepherd the online ordering application to completion, but I quickly realized that you could use one for internal ordering as well. So I rewrote it in Linux, made it efficient, and added design features so both salespeople and customers could easily enter orders. But the contact management system was still not working well, and it integrated poorly with the new ordering system.
So I eventally convinced the company to bite the bullet; I wrote a contact management system for the salespeople that was browser-based and (of course) integrated perfectly with the online ordering system. So now salespeople have their contact management and ordering done with one integrated system that works very well.
Unfortunately our IT person (who handles the Windows machines) can't be convinced to switch away. But all they do is run a browser anyway, so his administrative load is significantly reduced. They also use Outlook for email, but that was his choice, not mine.
So now we have mainly happy employees running a system that's based on Linux and can be updated and improved continuously without strain. Believe me, I couldn't have single-handedly developed the same thing under Windows. It could have been done, but it would have taken a lot more time and a lot of help. (Can you imagine installing the silly thing on 70-odd PCs?)
In short, a browser-based application is faster to develop, more efficient to deploy, and just plain works better than what Microsoft is pushing. And I'm proud to say I haven't used one piece of Microsoft software to develop the system - it's strictly gcc, perl, mySQL and a little PHP.
I may be prejudiced - heck, I am, of course - but browser-based software using a Linux back end just plain works. There's no reason in the world not to use it, and it has the nice bonus of being compatible with any platform on the planet - I've used it with Linux, MacOS 9, MacOS X, and even an SGI.
And oh yes -- Windows, too.
D
Well, yes, but even memory sticks only go up to 128mb, which isn't enough for much in the way of video.
D
I have the predecessor to this model, so I have a few comments.
The movie player works fine, although the only movie I loaded into it was a totally baffling promotion for the AIBO. A friend of mine said "What's that?" when I played it for her. She thought that if it was advertising, it needed some SERIOUS re-working.
Of course the movie player isn't terribly useful due to the low memory capacity of the device (16mb if my memory serves). I think the minute or so long AIBO movie was about a megabyte. I'd count the movie player as a curiosity and nothing more.
The high-resolution display is simply fantastic. I gather from the review that this is essentially the same display, but with added resolution on the bottom, where the permanently set up input area is on mine.
All it takes to sell the CLIE over its Palm competition is one look at that display. The CLIE also has a "real metal" feel which looks conspicuously high-quality compared to the plasticky Palm and Handspring models.
I have no doubt at all that the keyboard would really help make this unit easier to use. I am okay at Graffiti, but still find the motions required to write akward. This might be because I've used a keyboard for my entire life, though; regular handwriting is just as annoying for me.
All in all, this is a real wake-up call for Palm, which has undeniably been caught napping. I look forward to giving this device a try at my local Fry's soon.
D
Gray Davis' total campaign warchest is over $35 million, and he's actively seeking out more at all times.
California has some of the nation's most expensive media markets, and a population that's not terribly enthused about politics.
As a result, heavy advertising is the name of the game - and it's expensive to the extreme.
D
Except when loading up 10,000 Mozilla/OmniWeb/IE windows, OSX works very fast for me. I don't think there will be that much difference with Jaguar if most of the emphasis is on increasing graphics speed.
When I load up loads of windows, for some reason the menus get sluggish. I think this may be about the memory the web browsers are using as much as anything else, but it's odd considering that I have 1.5gb RAM.
The new 1ghz system is only about 30% faster than the dual 450. So I wouldn't worry about getting rid of the dual 450 just yet.
Hope that helps.
D