Microsoft and Intel's "PC99" spec has actually banned the PC GamePort. (However, a MIDI port is still "optional".)
So, expect one of the last untouched remnants of the original IBM PC to go away RSN, if it hasn't already. --
Re:Great news?? I think not...
on
More on LinDVD
·
· Score: 1
You make an important point -- it took "the industry" years and years to come up with the DVD format spec, most of this time expended in politics. And, even after all of that, they still had Divx challenging them for a while. You would never get buy-in from any studios to ship movies on the new format.
One thing that is completely possible is a large capacity optical disk designed for data storage, possibly even based on a DVD drive mechinism, just without the video "features". I just don't see DVD-ROM (etc) cutting it in the long term -- the format was a tacked-on afterthought, and there are too many political and technical landmines hardwired in. --
Re:Great news?? I think not...
on
More on LinDVD
·
· Score: 1
"I've got mine, now screw everybody else" ??? That's not at all What my post said. More like "I don't have mine, don't get yours." --
Re:Great news?? I think not...
on
More on LinDVD
·
· Score: 2
So if I don't happen to be running Linux on a main distribution,I'm still locked out of playing movies I paid for
First it's "The Industry won't give us a player!" Now it's "The Industry won't give *all* of us a player!"
I can understand the frustration, but what confuses me is the misdirected efforts of the Linux/Free Software community.
Look -- the legal and technical framework that was built into the DVD format sucks. You know it, I know it, 10000 other Slashdot posters can't shut up about CSS, Region locking, etc, etc, etc. So, what's the natural reaction? Keep buying those DVDs and try to 'hack' the system with DeCSS, mashing the buttons on your playstation, whatever. Interesting, sure, but don't fool yourself into thinking that little hacks are a long term solution to the future of closed digital media.
You can't play the DVDs that you paid for in the exact manner you want. That fact is a very important aspect of the design of the DVD format. You should have known it, and probably did know it, when you put your money down on the counter. The only real solution is to stop buying DVDs until they fix the format!
Time and time again, Slashdotters declare that they won't use Windows 2000, Mac OS X, Solaris, and so on because of the licensing conditions. But for some reason, you'll happily tramp on your principles just to see "The Matrix" in glorious 525-line resolution. Would it really kill you to boycott buying/renting the DVD and instead support the (relatively) free formats of VHS or even LaserDisc?
There's lots of complaining about the MPAA and their tactics on this board. But the implicit message is always "I want to watch DVDs!" -- while you may be condemning them, you are actually implicitly supporting the MPAA and their encrypted, copy-protected digital media vision of the future. By "buying in", you are implicity part of the problem.
You are all gadget freaks; You are all early adopters; You actually have a lot of power in this market (the market value of Slashdot/Andover proves this). So quit being complicit with the MPAA's master plan, and start voting with your wallets for media formats that you can support! --
Well, terminals are not a consumer product, so you probably wouldn't see them in the store. Your store probably doesn't have the Compaq Proliant 8500s (etc) that they use to serve these things with either.
Actually, the best place to see Wyse products in a store is to take a close look at the cash register. They seem to do a pretty good business in Point-Of-Sale terminals. (They look to be VT220 clones.) --
1) Wyse has made CE-based devices for some time. 2) Wyse didn't like the CE licencing terms. 3) Wyse announced a Linux-based product to gain leverage against Microsoft. 4) Microsoft dropped the price on CE 5) Wyse dumped the Linux project because it was no longer needed.
(BTW, IE for WinCE is different than the Win32 product.) --
Etherlink III 3c509 are insanely common. If Be is having trouble supporting a card like that, I'd hate to think about what you have to deal with if you have an off-brand model. --
The question is software design practices versus business practices. The only problem, with Microsoft, it difficult to slice a clear line between the two.
I'll give Microsoft credit for being enormously clever with marketing Internet Explorer. When they announced in December 1995 that they were going to integrate it with the Windows shell, almost nobody could figure out why. They had just spent 3 years and millions of dollars designing the Windows 95 shell, and on the surface, replacing it right away seemed bewildering.
Eventually, "integrated" applications made it clear what the technical reasons were. Even Unix desktops are adding integrated browsing features, so there must be some value there. But the key point is that Microsoft knew all along that the only way they could catch up to Netscape's marketshare was to design the browser 'into' Windows. The marketing was driving the design decisions.
But, as I said, even if they would have only integrated IE at no cost, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. What matters is that they pretty ruthlessly went after Netscape's ability to expand their user base by flexing monopoly muscle. That's illegal. In a situation where the number of web users expanded 100 times over, making it difficult for new users to get Netscape was the difference between life and death for that particular Microsoft competitor.
BTW, by 1998 Microsoft had a full scale OEM revolt on their hands and knew that the DOJ was coming after them. That is why they loosened up on many of the 'default desktop' restrictions, and is the reason that current computers ship with Netscape and ISP icons. --
However, one thing that I've noticed about Microsoft is that they never can really commit totally to the server market because it would undermine their revenue base, which is virtually 100% on the client side. This held back their server products, and has limited their vision ('Windows DNA') of the network of the future. They refuse to introduce any network-related product that isn't tied to Windows or Office in some way or another.
They would love to have the huge profit margins that Sun and IBM enjoy, but they refuse to buy into the Fat Server-Thin Client model. Ultimately, this will be their Waterloo -- fat desktop clients (and, hey, that includes Unix too) are too expensive to support in the long run. --
One could make the same argument (I have) that Win98 was free and you payed $80 for the IE browser.
Actually a better argument would be that Win 98 Upgrade cost $80, but the corporate labor costs of installing Win 95, 12 service packs, IE 4, DirectX, and so on was probably about $500. Essentially, it was just extorting the installed base. --
Well, Microsoft specifically designed IE so that it is an operating system upgrade. DLLs that have been in Windows since version 3 are now part of Internet Explorer.
Personally, I think the IE-tying issue isn't an issue. What's more important is Microsoft's use of monopoly power in taking Netscape and "cutting off their air supply" (as MS put it). And the fact that this soft of thing is a common Microsoft business practice.
IE is part of Windows, and it's not going away. Unlike tricks like 98Lite, the UI of Windows 2000 would need to be massively re-engineered to get rid of IE. Let Windows Inc. have Internet Explorer -- that battle is over, IE is a revenue drain, and even Linux desktop designers seem to believe that browser integration offers some benefits to the application developer.
Besides, without the MS goons threating them, the OEMs would probably be very happy to ship Netscape 6 with some branded skins as the default browser. They've got 30 GB hard drives to fill up with crap. --
It would be bad news for the MS-Apps company. But it's great news for the MS-Operating System company, because it would mean more 3rd party support. (Yes, even more!) This would help them hold off competitors like Linux.
In fact, if a Windows Inc. company was formed, and wasn't required to support an application company, they would probably be more than happy to release complete API documentation even without a government order. --
I think I remember George Bush (jr.) saying that he wouldn't allow a split-up.
My understanding is that the DoJ is actually pretty heavily controlled by the civil service. Now that they started this fight, it's unlikely that any politican can stop it. Consider the IBM and the AT+T cases -- the government managed to keep the cases going for years despite the fact that both corporations have an enormous amount of political influence.
(In fact, Gates donated quite heavily to Clinton in 1992, and that didn't stop the antitrust case.)
BTW, Microsoft never included anything better than Real 5 support. That's two versions old, so it's understandable that they are dropping it. --
Anyone who believes that the AT+T breakup was a failure is seriously confused. Just check the prices for long distance calls and telephone equipment.
Also, new applications like IP Telephony would probably never have happened with the benevolent Ma Bell in control.
BTW, I don't think Western Electric was broken off into a seperate company. It primarily stayed as part of AT+T, although chunks may have been spun off to the Baby Bells. The "Western Electric" brand name went away at the time of the breakup, if not earlier. AT+T also ceeded ownership of phonelines and equipment within private structures, opening the equipment market. Western Electric was finally broken off when AT+T spun off their equipment division as Lucent Technologies a few years back. --
As for the "tying" of Internet Explorer, I still don't see the issue with this.
The issues isn't that they did it. It's how they did it.
1) In their own words, Microsoft indicated that they were giving away IE to undercut Netscape. 2) They went out and paid off several large ISPs (from AOL on down) so that the ISPs distributed IE instead of Netscape. 3) They threatened to raise prices on OEMs such as Compaq if they shipped Netscape preinstalled. 4) They forbade OEMs from placing any other Internet or ISP-related icon on the preinstalled Windows desktop. 5) They paid and rewarded large websites that included IE-specific features like Channels. 6) They tied key Windows system DLLs to Internet Explorer, so that some 3rd party applications would be forced to have IE4 as a prerequisite for install.
The plan was to cut off Netscape's "air supply" -- meaning cut their revenue stream, cut their distribution points, cut their new user supply, and discourage development on Netscape-specific features. During a period when the Internet was growing exponentially, the plan was a incredible success -- By 1997-8, many of the early web users were still on Netscape. but a huge majority of new users were on IE. --
Real are basically a bunch of ex-Microsoft employees. Their natural partners are Microsoft.
Sorta true. Real's original business plan seemed to be (1) Invent streaming media format. (2) Get bought by Microsoft.
Only that didn't happen -- Microsoft bought someone else instead (NetShow?) Real publicly complained about the fact that MS' player took over their file types. I think the CEO even testified in front of Congress about how evil MS could be.
Without a business play, Real went into the toilet -- relying more and more ads, spam, and add-on crap. The licensing deal with Microsoft might as well be conceding the market. Real can stop doing R+D, and then can keep cramming advertising garbage down the throats of Netscape users for a couple years until people catch on to the fact that they're worthless. --
At least on the Mac side, the v3 Movie Player allows some additional features not available in the free version of the QT4 Player. Copy+Paste, seperate the audio track, things like that.
There's a number of alternate players available on the Mac side. I don't know of any for Windows, but perhaps I should go look... --
Re:Oh that poor Atari 800 :(
on
Quickielanche
·
· Score: 2
Well, here's an classic on that topic:
From: jearney@harp.aix.calpoly.edu (John Earney) Subject: Re: Backups and copiers Date: Fri, 03 Jun 1994 08:18:37 GMT ...
I have over 2,000 atari carts and I've only found a couple that don't work after they're cleaned.
exactly how durable are atari carts? I thought I'd see for myself...
I took a combat cart that was made in the 32nd week of 1981 (you can tell by reading a little number code printed on the ROM) and did some experiments on it to see what how much abuse it could take and still work.
1) I took the cart and dropped it out of my 2nd story window onto the cement 5 times. the plastic part of the cart was in pieces, but the game still worked.
2) I put the cartridge back together as best I could and put it out in the street. it got run over by a jeep. took it inside and it still worked. at this point there was nothing left but the PCB with the ROM soldered on it (and a metal cover that went over the ROM.)
3) I then put the PCB in boiling water for 5 minutes, took it out and immediately packed it in a snowball that I made out of frost from my freezer. after 5 minutes in the frost ball, I broke all the ice off it and plugged it into my atari... It worked!
4) I have this magnet that's so strong that if you hold it within about 1.5 feet from a TV screen all the color gets sucked to one side of the screen! well, I took that magnet and rubbed it all over the PCB and ROM. plugged it in... and it worked!
5) next I took a lighter and held the ROM right above the flame. I left it there for a few minutes until the ROM was smoking and giving off a nasty smell. I cleaned off all the suit and plugged it in and it still worked.
6) okay, no more mr. niceguy! I took it outside and had 3 cars run over it, I threw it up as high as I could and had it land on the cement twice, and I threw it down onto the cement as hard as I could twice. at this point the metal cover that goes over the ROM had broken off, the PCB was chipped on all the corners, the ROM was smashed onto the PCB so that the pins were all squished on one side and were being pulled out of the solder on the other side. I had to straighten out the pins so that none were touching each other and I had to hold the PCB together in one place so that the metal contacts would be in the right place when I plugged the game in. guess what... it _still_ worked!!
7) it had taken heat extremes, shock, and magnetism. next up was electricity. I took the atari power supply (9V, 500mA) and connected some alligator clips to the output terminals of the power supply. then I rubbed the other end of the alligator clips across the metal contacts on the game's PCB. I tried a bunch of different combinations and always had both alligator clips touching the PCB contacts so that electricity would be flowing. I plugged the game back in and much to my surprise it still worked!
8) I grabbed my hammer, laid the game down on the cement and gave it a good smack. the ROM cracked right in half breaking the silicon wafer. I plugged the game in and of course it had died on that one.
it took all that abuse to ruin a 13 year old atari game. I'd say they're pretty damn durable!
--
Re:Oh that poor Atari 800 :(
on
Quickielanche
·
· Score: 1
Two words: Star Raiders --
Re:Oh that poor Atari 800 :(
on
Quickielanche
·
· Score: 3
Every time an Atari 800 dies, a new one emerges from eBay to replace it. Thus is the endless circle of Atari. --
Re:Review of the Pre-beta
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
IE can load any COM application as a 'plug-in'. (For example, you can get Word or Excel docs to load inside of IE.)
Mozilla implements the same COM interface that Microsoft does for their "rendering engine". Thus you should be able to embed Mozilla anywhere you can embed IE (an obvious place is the AOL Client). Apparently you can even embed Mozilla inside of the IE chrome!
This is all on Windows, of course. I don't know if Mozilla works with any of the Unix component interfaces (Gnome, KDE, etc), or if these component interfaces are even ready to be used. I suspect this will be rectified quickly -- a couple weeks ago/. had an article where the Gnome developers confessed that they were very inspired by Internet Explorer as a modern, completely componentized application. Plus, as we all know, using HTML to browse your file system is the super kewl way to do it, and a browser component is necessary to create an "ActiveDesktop".
Well, Communicator 4 ships with a bunch of doohickies that are only really useful if you are using Netscape server products. Some of this stuff had to be ripped out of Mozilla because Netscape didn't own the code. I don't know if AOL is planning to put that back in.
In addition, you'll have AIM, maybe AOL's napster clone, Real Player, Netscape-specific chrome, Shop button, etc, etc. 99% may be a little high. --
So, you say that standard PC hardware and an embedded version of WinNT/WinCE doesn't make any economic sense...
Well, that's exactly what the Microsoft XBox will be! Apparently MS thinks it makes sense, but then again, some of the normal laws of economics don't apply to them. --
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Intel's "PC99" spec has actually banned the PC GamePort. (However, a MIDI port is still "optional".)
So, expect one of the last untouched remnants of the original IBM PC to go away RSN, if it hasn't already.
--
You make an important point -- it took "the industry" years and years to come up with the DVD format spec, most of this time expended in politics. And, even after all of that, they still had Divx challenging them for a while. You would never get buy-in from any studios to ship movies on the new format.
One thing that is completely possible is a large capacity optical disk designed for data storage, possibly even based on a DVD drive mechinism, just without the video "features". I just don't see DVD-ROM (etc) cutting it in the long term -- the format was a tacked-on afterthought, and there are too many political and technical landmines hardwired in.
--
"I've got mine, now screw everybody else" ??? That's not at all What my post said. More like "I don't have mine, don't get yours."
--
So if I don't happen to be running Linux on a main distribution,I'm still locked out of playing movies I paid for
First it's "The Industry won't give us a player!"
Now it's "The Industry won't give *all* of us a player!"
I can understand the frustration, but what confuses me is the misdirected efforts of the Linux/Free Software community.
Look -- the legal and technical framework that was built into the DVD format sucks. You know it, I know it, 10000 other Slashdot posters can't shut up about CSS, Region locking, etc, etc, etc. So, what's the natural reaction? Keep buying those DVDs and try to 'hack' the system with DeCSS, mashing the buttons on your playstation, whatever. Interesting, sure, but don't fool yourself into thinking that little hacks are a long term solution to the future of closed digital media.
You can't play the DVDs that you paid for in the exact manner you want. That fact is a very important aspect of the design of the DVD format. You should have known it, and probably did know it, when you put your money down on the counter. The only real solution is to stop buying DVDs until they fix the format!
Time and time again, Slashdotters declare that they won't use Windows 2000, Mac OS X, Solaris, and so on because of the licensing conditions. But for some reason, you'll happily tramp on your principles just to see "The Matrix" in glorious 525-line resolution. Would it really kill you to boycott buying/renting the DVD and instead support the (relatively) free formats of VHS or even LaserDisc?
There's lots of complaining about the MPAA and their tactics on this board. But the implicit message is always "I want to watch DVDs!" -- while you may be condemning them, you are actually implicitly supporting the MPAA and their encrypted, copy-protected digital media vision of the future. By "buying in", you are implicity part of the problem.
You are all gadget freaks; You are all early adopters; You actually have a lot of power in this market (the market value of Slashdot/Andover proves this). So quit being complicit with the MPAA's master plan, and start voting with your wallets for media formats that you can support!
--
Well, terminals are not a consumer product, so you probably wouldn't see them in the store. Your store probably doesn't have the Compaq Proliant 8500s (etc) that they use to serve these things with either.
Actually, the best place to see Wyse products in a store is to take a close look at the cash register. They seem to do a pretty good business in Point-Of-Sale terminals. (They look to be VT220 clones.)
--
Well the story is basically this:
1) Wyse has made CE-based devices for some time.
2) Wyse didn't like the CE licencing terms.
3) Wyse announced a Linux-based product to gain leverage against Microsoft.
4) Microsoft dropped the price on CE
5) Wyse dumped the Linux project because it was no longer needed.
(BTW, IE for WinCE is different than the Win32 product.)
--
Etherlink III 3c509 are insanely common. If Be is having trouble supporting a card like that, I'd hate to think about what you have to deal with if you have an off-brand model.
--
The question is software design practices versus business practices. The only problem, with Microsoft, it difficult to slice a clear line between the two.
I'll give Microsoft credit for being enormously clever with marketing Internet Explorer. When they announced in December 1995 that they were going to integrate it with the Windows shell, almost nobody could figure out why. They had just spent 3 years and millions of dollars designing the Windows 95 shell, and on the surface, replacing it right away seemed bewildering.
Eventually, "integrated" applications made it clear what the technical reasons were. Even Unix desktops are adding integrated browsing features, so there must be some value there. But the key point is that Microsoft knew all along that the only way they could catch up to Netscape's marketshare was to design the browser 'into' Windows. The marketing was driving the design decisions.
But, as I said, even if they would have only integrated IE at no cost, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. What matters is that they pretty ruthlessly went after Netscape's ability to expand their user base by flexing monopoly muscle. That's illegal. In a situation where the number of web users expanded 100 times over, making it difficult for new users to get Netscape was the difference between life and death for that particular Microsoft competitor.
BTW, by 1998 Microsoft had a full scale OEM revolt on their hands and knew that the DOJ was coming after them. That is why they loosened up on many of the 'default desktop' restrictions, and is the reason that current computers ship with Netscape and ISP icons.
--
I didn't write the anti-trust laws. Send your dopey "Business is business" diatribe to your congressman.
--
That's a very 'insightful' take on the situation.
However, one thing that I've noticed about Microsoft is that they never can really commit totally to the server market because it would undermine their revenue base, which is virtually 100% on the client side. This held back their server products, and has limited their vision ('Windows DNA') of the network of the future. They refuse to introduce any network-related product that isn't tied to Windows or Office in some way or another.
They would love to have the huge profit margins that Sun and IBM enjoy, but they refuse to buy into the Fat Server-Thin Client model. Ultimately, this will be their Waterloo -- fat desktop clients (and, hey, that includes Unix too) are too expensive to support in the long run.
--
One could make the same argument (I have) that Win98 was free and you payed $80 for the IE browser.
Actually a better argument would be that Win 98 Upgrade cost $80, but the corporate labor costs of installing Win 95, 12 service packs, IE 4, DirectX, and so on was probably about $500. Essentially, it was just extorting the installed base.
--
Well, Microsoft specifically designed IE so that it is an operating system upgrade. DLLs that have been in Windows since version 3 are now part of Internet Explorer.
Personally, I think the IE-tying issue isn't an issue. What's more important is Microsoft's use of monopoly power in taking Netscape and "cutting off their air supply" (as MS put it). And the fact that this soft of thing is a common Microsoft business practice.
IE is part of Windows, and it's not going away. Unlike tricks like 98Lite, the UI of Windows 2000 would need to be massively re-engineered to get rid of IE. Let Windows Inc. have Internet Explorer -- that battle is over, IE is a revenue drain, and even Linux desktop designers seem to believe that browser integration offers some benefits to the application developer.
Besides, without the MS goons threating them, the OEMs would probably be very happy to ship Netscape 6 with some branded skins as the default browser. They've got 30 GB hard drives to fill up with crap.
--
I have a classic Bell dial phone, labeled Western Electric. It's old, but I can't imagine that it's that old.
But, to answer your question, I don't know. AT+T manufactured telephone equipment until the Lucent spinoff.
--
It would be bad news for the MS-Apps company. But it's great news for the MS-Operating System company, because it would mean more 3rd party support. (Yes, even more!) This would help them hold off competitors like Linux.
In fact, if a Windows Inc. company was formed, and wasn't required to support an application company, they would probably be more than happy to release complete API documentation even without a government order.
--
I think I remember George Bush (jr.) saying that he wouldn't allow a split-up.
My understanding is that the DoJ is actually pretty heavily controlled by the civil service. Now that they started this fight, it's unlikely that any politican can stop it. Consider the IBM and the AT+T cases -- the government managed to keep the cases going for years despite the fact that both corporations have an enormous amount of political influence.
(In fact, Gates donated quite heavily to Clinton in 1992, and that didn't stop the antitrust case.)
BTW, Microsoft never included anything better than Real 5 support. That's two versions old, so it's understandable that they are dropping it.
--
Anyone who believes that the AT+T breakup was a failure is seriously confused. Just check the prices for long distance calls and telephone equipment.
Also, new applications like IP Telephony would probably never have happened with the benevolent Ma Bell in control.
BTW, I don't think Western Electric was broken off into a seperate company. It primarily stayed as part of AT+T, although chunks may have been spun off to the Baby Bells. The "Western Electric" brand name went away at the time of the breakup, if not earlier. AT+T also ceeded ownership of phonelines and equipment within private structures, opening the equipment market. Western Electric was finally broken off when AT+T spun off their equipment division as Lucent Technologies a few years back.
--
As for the "tying" of Internet Explorer, I still don't see the issue with this.
The issues isn't that they did it. It's how they did it.
1) In their own words, Microsoft indicated that they were giving away IE to undercut Netscape.
2) They went out and paid off several large ISPs (from AOL on down) so that the ISPs distributed IE instead of Netscape.
3) They threatened to raise prices on OEMs such as Compaq if they shipped Netscape preinstalled.
4) They forbade OEMs from placing any other Internet or ISP-related icon on the preinstalled Windows desktop.
5) They paid and rewarded large websites that included IE-specific features like Channels.
6) They tied key Windows system DLLs to Internet Explorer, so that some 3rd party applications would be forced to have IE4 as a prerequisite for install.
The plan was to cut off Netscape's "air supply" -- meaning cut their revenue stream, cut their distribution points, cut their new user supply, and discourage development on Netscape-specific features. During a period when the Internet was growing exponentially, the plan was a incredible success -- By 1997-8, many of the early web users were still on Netscape. but a huge majority of new users were on IE.
--
Real are basically a bunch of ex-Microsoft employees. Their natural partners are Microsoft.
Sorta true. Real's original business plan seemed to be (1) Invent streaming media format. (2) Get bought by Microsoft.
Only that didn't happen -- Microsoft bought someone else instead (NetShow?) Real publicly complained about the fact that MS' player took over their file types. I think the CEO even testified in front of Congress about how evil MS could be.
Without a business play, Real went into the toilet -- relying more and more ads, spam, and add-on crap. The licensing deal with Microsoft might as well be conceding the market. Real can stop doing R+D, and then can keep cramming advertising garbage down the throats of Netscape users for a couple years until people catch on to the fact that they're worthless.
--
At least on the Mac side, the v3 Movie Player allows some additional features not available in the free version of the QT4 Player. Copy+Paste, seperate the audio track, things like that.
There's a number of alternate players available on the Mac side. I don't know of any for Windows, but perhaps I should go look...
--
Well, here's an classic on that topic:
From: jearney@harp.aix.calpoly.edu (John Earney)
Subject: Re: Backups and copiers
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 1994 08:18:37 GMT
...
I have over 2,000 atari carts and I've only found a couple that don't work
after they're cleaned.
exactly how durable are atari carts? I thought I'd see for myself...
I took a combat cart that was made in the 32nd week of 1981 (you can tell
by reading a little number code printed on the ROM) and did some experiments
on it to see what how much abuse it could take and still work.
1) I took the cart and dropped it out of my 2nd story window onto the cement
5 times. the plastic part of the cart was in pieces, but the game
still worked.
2) I put the cartridge back together as best I could and put it out in the
street. it got run over by a jeep. took it inside and it still
worked. at this point there was nothing left but the PCB with the
ROM soldered on it (and a metal cover that went over the ROM.)
3) I then put the PCB in boiling water for 5 minutes, took it out and
immediately packed it in a snowball that I made out of frost from my
freezer. after 5 minutes in the frost ball, I broke all the ice off
it and plugged it into my atari... It worked!
4) I have this magnet that's so strong that if you hold it within about 1.5
feet from a TV screen all the color gets sucked to one side of the
screen! well, I took that magnet and rubbed it all over the PCB and
ROM. plugged it in... and it worked!
5) next I took a lighter and held the ROM right above the flame. I left it
there for a few minutes until the ROM was smoking and giving off
a nasty smell. I cleaned off all the suit and plugged it in and
it still worked.
6) okay, no more mr. niceguy! I took it outside and had 3 cars run over it,
I threw it up as high as I could and had it land on the cement twice,
and I threw it down onto the cement as hard as I could twice. at
this point the metal cover that goes over the ROM had broken off, the
PCB was chipped on all the corners, the ROM was smashed onto the PCB
so that the pins were all squished on one side and were being pulled
out of the solder on the other side. I had to straighten out the pins
so that none were touching each other and I had to hold the PCB
together in one place so that the metal contacts would be in the right
place when I plugged the game in. guess what... it _still_ worked!!
7) it had taken heat extremes, shock, and magnetism. next up was
electricity. I took the atari power supply (9V, 500mA) and connected
some alligator clips to the output terminals of the power supply.
then I rubbed the other end of the alligator clips across the metal
contacts on the game's PCB. I tried a bunch of different
combinations and always had both alligator clips touching the PCB
contacts so that electricity would be flowing. I plugged the game
back in and much to my surprise it still worked!
8) I grabbed my hammer, laid the game down on the cement and gave it a good
smack. the ROM cracked right in half breaking the silicon wafer.
I plugged the game in and of course it had died on that one.
it took all that abuse to ruin a 13 year old atari game. I'd say they're
pretty damn durable!
--
Two words: Star Raiders
--
Every time an Atari 800 dies, a new one emerges from eBay to replace it. Thus is the endless circle of Atari.
--
IE can load any COM application as a 'plug-in'. (For example, you can get Word or Excel docs to load inside of IE.)
/. had an article where the Gnome developers confessed that they were very inspired by Internet Explorer as a modern, completely componentized application. Plus, as we all know, using HTML to browse your file system is the super kewl way to do it, and a browser component is necessary to create an "ActiveDesktop".
Mozilla implements the same COM interface that Microsoft does for their "rendering engine". Thus you should be able to embed Mozilla anywhere you can embed IE (an obvious place is the AOL Client). Apparently you can even embed Mozilla inside of the IE chrome!
This is all on Windows, of course. I don't know if Mozilla works with any of the Unix component interfaces (Gnome, KDE, etc), or if these component interfaces are even ready to be used. I suspect this will be rectified quickly -- a couple weeks ago
--
Well, Communicator 4 ships with a bunch of doohickies that are only really useful if you are using Netscape server products. Some of this stuff had to be ripped out of Mozilla because Netscape didn't own the code. I don't know if AOL is planning to put that back in.
In addition, you'll have AIM, maybe AOL's napster clone, Real Player, Netscape-specific chrome, Shop button, etc, etc. 99% may be a little high.
--
So, you say that standard PC hardware and an embedded version of WinNT/WinCE doesn't make any economic sense ...
Well, that's exactly what the Microsoft XBox will be! Apparently MS thinks it makes sense, but then again, some of the normal laws of economics don't apply to them.
--