Maybe when the Newton first came out you couldn't do C on the Newton... but you have been able to for years. Apple put out a MPW extension/setup that lets you do C/C++ development for the Newton. However, you can't write entire apps in C/C++, the GUI still laid out in NewtonScript, but you can defiinately compile to native ARM code. There is a slick disk image on Unna.org for getting into C++ Newton development. There is also an assembler for the Newton which runs on the Newton itself, if that is your thing.
With the ATA driver, you can add a helluva lot more than 2 GB to your Newton. I myself have a 2 GB Toshiba PCMCIA drive which I use in my Newton... but you can use up to 20 GB PCMCIA harddrives in the Newton with the ATA driver- the same drive as in the iPods.
He may have meant the programming model was impractical, but maybe he meant overall. Either way, I disagree- there are many advantages to the NewtonScript programming system over a C based system like on the Palm OS. A lot easier to program, with good performance. It's amazing how quickly you can churn out a decent Newton app compared to doing it the pain-in-the-assway like Palm wants you to do... Now a days, you can get RAD IDEs for the Palm OS, but the Newton had this ability back in 1993! GUI layout, a full OO language which was very dynamic, an OODB, extensible system... very fun!
Maybe there was software you needed it to sync with but it didn't, but the Newton, out of the box syncs with the Palm Desktop (used to be a Claris PIM app). You can get cheap or free sync utilities to sync it with Lotus Notes, Outlook, among others.
'newer/smaller/faster/prettier' have shoddy PIM apps. PalmOS has a better subset of PIM apps, but they're incomplete and very limited in comparison to what you can do on the Newton. On the Newton, you can link any two pieces of data, using HyperNewt. Link drawings into a Contact/Addressbook entry, link a webpage into a note. Far more powerful and flexible.
I currently use a Palm, but the Newton 120 that I still have in many ways is a much more sophisticated system
Also, you must consider that that Newton 120 is around 8-9 years old, and far from the state of the Newton art. the Newton 2000 and 2100 are much more capable, powerful, and even easier to use than the 120!
Wow, thanks! If you or anyone else know a good school in Canada for ecology (esp computational or mathematical ecology), that's what I'm wanting to do.:)
While I managed to figure out that the submitter was being sarcastic, it wasn't entirely clear. Considering the people of the US are being told by our 'elected' representitives that these laws are just for terrorists, plenty of folks are reading this submission and missing the poor attempt at sarcasm.
It is. But that is the point of this entry- a lot of people seem to distinguish "real programming" and "scripting." They are the same thing. One may be programming something in a different domain, but it doesn't make it not-programming.
It is just as possible to implement these features as it was for NeXTSTEP and OpenStep. However, when Apple was reimplementing the basic graphics engine (Quartz- Display PDF) to use PDF instead of PS, they choose not to implement the remote display features. Which is a shame.
The X server doesn't know what can and can't be done by the hardware?
The only reason someone coding for X11 would have to rely on high-level software for these features is that they don't exist in the low level. If X11 could do the kind of compositing that OS X can, you would use these effects on the lower-level. Granted, you'd probably still be using a library like Qt or Gtk+ to make it easier (rather than Xlib), but they would in turn be using those lower-level features. Likewise, you don't usually implement a GUI app in OS X by calling CoreGraphics (the API for Quartz) directly- you write code for Cocoa or Carbon.
While Apple apparently didn't want to reimplement this for OS X, NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody, and OS X Server 1.x all had the abilities of X11 and Quartz combined- they could display individual windows over the network like X, but with a well-designed graphics engine (which employed PostScript instead of PDF in those days).
This isn't what the poster was asking about. DV/X exported the entire Win 3.1 window to X11- not individual applications.
DV/X was way cool though. Even cooler than regular Desqview- and unlike Win3.1, at the same time, could actually mutlitask between a terminal window downloading something from a BBS and another DOS program.:P
Oh, grow up. I've not found a PDA operating system better than the Newton OS. Doesn't mean I'm on Apple's jock. I appreciate some of what they've done yes, but there is a difference young one.
Same thing on a Mac. OpenBoot/OpenFirmware can do a lot- mount file systems, access network devices read input from a mouse and kb, and much more. Heck, you can even get a version of Pong soley written in OF Forth for the Mac.
Didn't come into my head. What instantly pops into my head is a fully loaded GNOME or KDE environment, running Enlightenment. OS X, unlike X11, had intelligent design put into the basic graphics environment, making the features of OS X easy to implement and pretty low on resource usage. Yes, implementing an exact clone of the OS X desktop on X11 would be horrid- but a lot of that resource waste would stem directly from X11's design, which is inadequate for efficient implementation of these features.
On my girlfriend's 233 MHz iMac, she has no problems with any of this so called "bloat," running OS X 10.2. The windows drag, the dock icons bounce, the translucent menus pop up quite well. Not as snappy as a very new Mac, but 10x faster than a semi-modern version of KDE and GNOME performed on the same machine (under Debian 3).
You see, OS X doesn't have to pull the same kind of hacks as KDE does to get something as simple as a translucent menu. OS X just includes an alpha the background color of the menu. The core graphics engine knows about alpha and can deal with it well. KDE, on the otherhand, has to take a screenshot of the screen, blend it into the background color, text, and icon images of the menu. Each time you open one of these translucent KDE menus. Yeah, it sucks, but there isn't much else the KDE project could do, other than encourage switching to one of the hacked X servers with built-in alpha blending.
Not to sound like I'm on Apple's jock, but jeeze, there's ignorant and there's just plain slashdumb.
GEoD wasn't horrible, it just didn't have for me what the original Dune (and the Brian + Kevin books do) had. Lacks the same vibe. What I enjoy about the Dune series is all the political intrigue as well as the interesting use of technology, many storylines. GEoD seemed so flat after Dune.
I was hoping you just had a script that used something like pdf2txt to turn the PDF into a NewtonWorks document. Saving pictures of text seems like a roundabout way to do things.
There are other ways to do it, including converting pdf2html or txt; there may be a pdf2rtf as well- all of which NewtonWorks, Notes, or Newt's Cape can read . I started with this initially, but it wasn't good. I guess it depends on the kinds of PDFs you need to read- in my case, it's a lot of journal articles scanned in by my lib and put on deserve. They're done in a hurry (up the same day the prof asks for them to be done), and they don't do OCR. In my case, I just want a big picture, an exact representation of the article I need to read.
It's roundabout, but not much work. In fact, probably less work than doing something manually with pdf2txt. I had to write the Python script yes, but past that, it's just a matter of telling my iBook where the PDF is, via apache:
Ok, then I'll continue to press forward. I can't say i thought CoD or GEoD were great, per se, but at least the first sixth or so of HoD just seemed nasty.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe when the Newton first came out you couldn't do C on the Newton... but you have been able to for years. Apple put out a MPW extension/setup that lets you do C/C++ development for the Newton. However, you can't write entire apps in C/C++, the GUI still laid out in NewtonScript, but you can defiinately compile to native ARM code. There is a slick disk image on Unna.org for getting into C++ Newton development. There is also an assembler for the Newton which runs on the Newton itself, if that is your thing.
With the ATA driver, you can add a helluva lot more than 2 GB to your Newton. I myself have a 2 GB Toshiba PCMCIA drive which I use in my Newton... but you can use up to 20 GB PCMCIA harddrives in the Newton with the ATA driver- the same drive as in the iPods.
He may have meant the programming model was impractical, but maybe he meant overall. Either way, I disagree- there are many advantages to the NewtonScript programming system over a C based system like on the Palm OS. A lot easier to program, with good performance. It's amazing how quickly you can churn out a decent Newton app compared to doing it the pain-in-the-assway like Palm wants you to do... Now a days, you can get RAD IDEs for the Palm OS, but the Newton had this ability back in 1993! GUI layout, a full OO language which was very dynamic, an OODB, extensible system... very fun!
A Newton 503? No such thing lad- what do you mean?
Maybe there was software you needed it to sync with but it didn't, but the Newton, out of the box syncs with the Palm Desktop (used to be a Claris PIM app). You can get cheap or free sync utilities to sync it with Lotus Notes, Outlook, among others.
'newer/smaller/faster/prettier' have shoddy PIM apps. PalmOS has a better subset of PIM apps, but they're incomplete and very limited in comparison to what you can do on the Newton. On the Newton, you can link any two pieces of data, using HyperNewt. Link drawings into a Contact/Addressbook entry, link a webpage into a note. Far more powerful and flexible.
No, Graffiti was developed by Palm. The claim by Xerox is that they invented character recognition.
I currently use a Palm, but the Newton 120 that I still have in many ways is a much more sophisticated system
Also, you must consider that that Newton 120 is around 8-9 years old, and far from the state of the Newton art. the Newton 2000 and 2100 are much more capable, powerful, and even easier to use than the 120!
Wow, thanks! If you or anyone else know a good school in Canada for ecology (esp computational or mathematical ecology), that's what I'm wanting to do. :)
The US was never a democratic state, always a Democratic Republic. That the US is a Democracy is BS they teach you in grade school.
Including me, perhaps. I'm hoping to go to grad school in Canada to escape this tomfoolery!
While I managed to figure out that the submitter was being sarcastic, it wasn't entirely clear. Considering the people of the US are being told by our 'elected' representitives that these laws are just for terrorists, plenty of folks are reading this submission and missing the poor attempt at sarcasm.
It is. But that is the point of this entry- a lot of people seem to distinguish "real programming" and "scripting." They are the same thing. One may be programming something in a different domain, but it doesn't make it not-programming.
Ha!
:) NXHost + Zilla.app = good times!
My favorite use of this feature was always the dual-mobo cube hack.
It is just as possible to implement these features as it was for NeXTSTEP and OpenStep. However, when Apple was reimplementing the basic graphics engine (Quartz- Display PDF) to use PDF instead of PS, they choose not to implement the remote display features. Which is a shame.
The X server doesn't know what can and can't be done by the hardware?
The only reason someone coding for X11 would have to rely on high-level software for these features is that they don't exist in the low level. If X11 could do the kind of compositing that OS X can, you would use these effects on the lower-level. Granted, you'd probably still be using a library like Qt or Gtk+ to make it easier (rather than Xlib), but they would in turn be using those lower-level features. Likewise, you don't usually implement a GUI app in OS X by calling CoreGraphics (the API for Quartz) directly- you write code for Cocoa or Carbon.
While Apple apparently didn't want to reimplement this for OS X, NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody, and OS X Server 1.x all had the abilities of X11 and Quartz combined- they could display individual windows over the network like X, but with a well-designed graphics engine (which employed PostScript instead of PDF in those days).
This isn't what the poster was asking about. DV/X exported the entire Win 3.1 window to X11- not individual applications.
:P
DV/X was way cool though. Even cooler than regular Desqview- and unlike Win3.1, at the same time, could actually mutlitask between a terminal window downloading something from a BBS and another DOS program.
Oh, grow up. I've not found a PDA operating system better than the Newton OS. Doesn't mean I'm on Apple's jock. I appreciate some of what they've done yes, but there is a difference young one.
Same thing on a Mac. OpenBoot/OpenFirmware can do a lot- mount file systems, access network devices read input from a mouse and kb, and much more. Heck, you can even get a version of Pong soley written in OF Forth for the Mac.
Didn't come into my head. What instantly pops into my head is a fully loaded GNOME or KDE environment, running Enlightenment. OS X, unlike X11, had intelligent design put into the basic graphics environment, making the features of OS X easy to implement and pretty low on resource usage. Yes, implementing an exact clone of the OS X desktop on X11 would be horrid- but a lot of that resource waste would stem directly from X11's design, which is inadequate for efficient implementation of these features.
On my girlfriend's 233 MHz iMac, she has no problems with any of this so called "bloat," running OS X 10.2. The windows drag, the dock icons bounce, the translucent menus pop up quite well. Not as snappy as a very new Mac, but 10x faster than a semi-modern version of KDE and GNOME performed on the same machine (under Debian 3).
You see, OS X doesn't have to pull the same kind of hacks as KDE does to get something as simple as a translucent menu. OS X just includes an alpha the background color of the menu. The core graphics engine knows about alpha and can deal with it well. KDE, on the otherhand, has to take a screenshot of the screen, blend it into the background color, text, and icon images of the menu. Each time you open one of these translucent KDE menus. Yeah, it sucks, but there isn't much else the KDE project could do, other than encourage switching to one of the hacked X servers with built-in alpha blending.
Not to sound like I'm on Apple's jock, but jeeze, there's ignorant and there's just plain slashdumb.
Touché! I was afraid to be the one to say it with a bunch of raving PC luzers around!
But it is a PC. And there's a good chance a substandard PC. The best kind, right?
GEoD wasn't horrible, it just didn't have for me what the original Dune (and the Brian + Kevin books do) had. Lacks the same vibe. What I enjoy about the Dune series is all the political intrigue as well as the interesting use of technology, many storylines. GEoD seemed so flat after Dune.
I was hoping you just had a script that used something like pdf2txt to turn the PDF into a NewtonWorks document. Saving pictures of text seems like a roundabout way to do things.
: // some.com/doc.pdf
There are other ways to do it, including converting pdf2html or txt; there may be a pdf2rtf as well- all of which NewtonWorks, Notes, or Newt's Cape can read . I started with this initially, but it wasn't good. I guess it depends on the kinds of PDFs you need to read- in my case, it's a lot of journal articles scanned in by my lib and put on deserve. They're done in a hurry (up the same day the prof asks for them to be done), and they don't do OCR. In my case, I just want a big picture, an exact representation of the article I need to read.
It's roundabout, but not much work. In fact, probably less work than doing something manually with pdf2txt. I had to write the Python script yes, but past that, it's just a matter of telling my iBook where the PDF is, via apache:
http://192.168.0.1/cgi-bin/pdf2html.py?url=http
Then save in Newt's Cape, which saves as a NewtonBook. It is viewable in NetHopper and others too, but NetHopper doesn't save as an ebook.
I don't deal with the images manually- I don't have to view them manually or transfer them manually. It's pretty slick, actually.
Ok, then I'll continue to press forward. I can't say i thought CoD or GEoD were great, per se, but at least the first sixth or so of HoD just seemed nasty.