I've almost no use for the modem, but I assumed it worked. No idea though. No FireWire devices here, if I come across a simple one like a hard-drive, I'll try it for you.:)
Look at the sig, lil man. It's a progrmaming and operating environment. Entirely in Smalltalk. Also runs on bare metal as an OS. I live out of Squeak like many hardcore elispers live out of emacs. Gives me complete control over my computing environment.
A year ago, I sold my PowerMac G4/400 Tower to buy an iBook 500.
I love it. I can safely say that this is the most satisfying computer purchase I've ever made. Not that my other computers sucked, but it just rules.
Up until a month ago, I ran Mac OS X full-time. More and more, I've been using Squeak as my operating system rather than Mac OS X proper, with the exception of web-browsing which I do in OS X. I switched back to Linux so I could work on some aspects of Squeak more easily, and tie Squeak into my environment, long story.;P
I'm a veteran Linux user, dumping it a couple years back to switch to Mac OS X. I've switched back, and am doing fine. Linux still sucks in many of the ways I remembered, especially in the area of GUI consistency compared to OS X. But then again, I spend a lot of my time in Squeak, not with regular X apps so it doesn't bother me much.
I installed Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r6 on this puppy and the install went as smoothly as any x86 Linux install I've ever done (and I've done more than my fair share). I was surprised to find that out. A while back, I tried to install NetBSD, and it was a pain in the rump, so I was expecting something similar for Debian. Piece of cake. Upgraded to Woody without any problems.
I can even close the lid and have the 'book go to sleep, just like in OS 9 and X. It doesn't wake up as lightning fast as OS X does, but eh, I expected worse!
This machine is fast and durable. Incidentally, that's what I wanted from a computer. I'm sure you can get faster iBooks and PowerBooks and maybe even a faster PC notebook, but this does what I need and them some.
Sound still doesn't work, to my knowledge. This is a bummer, but not a huge deal.
I have my right command and enter keys mapped to do the job of my other mouse buttons. No, it's not a pain in the ass. Quite natural. I have a USB mouse, but haven't felt any need to figure out how to get it working in X11 yet. XFree runs fast enough, some room for graphics speed up though.
Don't see the big deal aobut a PCMCIA slot. This baby has everything I need on board, which IMO is a helluva lot better than to have to futz with PC cards. USB to serial adaptor works like a charm with the Newton.
I use Linux on my iBook. With no external mouse. Yet, I get along fine. What is my secret? I have the right Command key mapped to the middle button, and the enter key by the arrow d-pad mapped to be the right mouse button. No problem there.
You can always use an external mouse too. I have a decent three button (no scroll-wheel, thank god) Sun mouse, but haven't bothered to figure out how to get it working in X. Haven't felt the need to find out.
You can do that by substituting "Windows" for "Mac OS X." Like the other poster said, Mac OS X loves a lot of RAM. CPU speed isn't the issue here, the 128 MB of RAM is. Yeah, that sucks. But that's why it may feel slow. I can say that a lot of what I do feels a lot faster in Debian Woody on my iBook 500 than it did in Mac OS X. Not everything, though. However, I have 320 MB RAM which is plenty for OS X in my experience.
If you wish, then toss out the server example. There are times when better Java performance is desired. Including small devices and on the desktop. It's for those applications, regardless of where, such a co-processor would be nice. There are a fair amount of companies who are investing a lot into creating Java desktop apps, and many of them have suboptimal performance on today's machines. Sure, CPUs will get faster.
There are also a few people doing math-based research using Java. It would be amazing to be able to use RMI and a shared class pool to do distributed processing. Who needs entire computers to farm out computations to, when you have a 4 Java CPUs on a PCI card?
No, this kind of technology isn't required. We're getting along, using Java, without it today. But it could be nice for some applications.
PocketLinux wasn't so much out-competed as it was abandoned. They weren't poised to compete. Like a lot of open source companies, they expected the community to really take interest and start churning out apps for them. A lot of the Linux-nerd-world isn't into Java, they're still using C. That's all good, but you can't write (GUI) apps for PocketLinux in C. They're market, initially, wasn't end-users. It was the same group of people who read Slashdot and now own Zaurus and Agendas.
Sorry, don't follow you. I don't have the same attitude, having practical experience in the "real world" designing and developing, I've found that some VM-based languages can be slow, even if code is designed well. Usually, performances depends on the code itself.
Sure, having an opinion based on ignorance is valid. However, it's still rooted in ignorance. One of the purposes of discussion is to share information, and that's what I do.
But has anybody given any thought to making a VM that runs almost on top of the hardware with almost no system calls?
It's been done many times since the 70s. Not sure the first time a VM-based language was the OS, but it was the case with Smalltalk, as far back as 1972 or 1976. You can still get a Smalltalk-based OS with SqueakNOS. Squeak traditionally runs on top of a host OS like Linux, Mac OS, Windows and many others, but it has almost all of the features of an OS, including an awesome (but non-traditional) GUI system, compleat with remote viewing. The binaries are identical between the OS-version of Squeak an the hosted-on-Linux version.
The current state of SqueakNOS is that you still have to write a little C for certain things. Luckily, you can write your low-level code in a subset of Smalltalk and have it translated to C. That's how the Squeak virtual machine is written, no manual C coding required. However, there is active work being done on Squeampiler, which allows Squeak itself to compile and generate native code. Which means the entire system 100% will be in Smalltalk.
As it is now, if you want to change (in SqueakNOS or Squeak on top of a 'normal' OS) fundamental changes to the language can be made within the environment. The only thing compiled to C is the virtual machine and other C plugins, like OS-specific functions. Everything else, the bytecode compiler, the parser, an emulator for itself, all the development tools and libraries are all written in Smalltalk.
I am working on an operating environment for PDAs, Dynapad along these lines. I'm doing the development on top of Linux/PPC, Solaris/SPARC, and Windows/x86 and run it on my iPAQ under WinCE/ARM. Eventually, I'd like to run it as the OS, if something like OSKit ever makes it's way to the iPAQ platform.
There are many virtual machines are aren't bloated. How large is the JVM? Just the JVM, not the library (jars, class files). I imagine it's pretty large. Just because Java is poorly done it doesn't mean all languages with VMs are as bloated. Smalltalk, which is by all measures a language with a huge library, can have a VM as small as 100k, but still get to all the standard libraries. Sure, you could target it to hardware, but if the language is well designed (like Smalltalk, not like Java) it's not as much of an issue.
Not even the JVM includes anything near the kitchen sink. The libraries do. They're not terribly hard to port when all they do is interpret bytecodes.
It's sad to see people with these kind of attitudes. In their minds, all virtual machine-based languages equals Java. Anything that's not compiled directly to native code equals QBasic. That's not the case.
Parrot is what got me interested in perl. Perl is too inconsistent for me to take very seriously, but Parrot is promising as a.NET work-a-like with no MS tie-ins.:)
There's no reason that it can't be both machine independent and have an accelorator chip. You can get SSL accelorators, yet, I can still run SSL on this machine, which hasn't one.
It would be useful for certain applications for the computer to have a (or multiple!) hardware Java chips to speed up execution of Java code. Java servlets, for example. Sun is hyping Java on the server side awfully hard. But they can be slow, especially when you have thousands going at a time.
You could have this *and* a cross-platform VM. They're not mutually exclusive. Schmucks in Windows can still run Limewire with a setup like this on some machines.
The Zaurus doesn't use Java exclusively. From my playing with them, Java (like elsewhere) is still very much as second-class citizen in Qtopia. PocketLinux, which is now defunct (no doubt because Java sucks- sorry, couldn't help it) was a PDA operating environment that ran on top of Linux that used Java exclusively.
Actually, it has been attempted. Sun created a java chip, called picoJava. There also is an ARM chip with a hardware interpreter for JVM bytecodes, Jazelle. There are plenty of otherexamples of this.
Nothing that sits on the mobo to supplement a 'real' CPU tho.
Is there a reason why these virtual machines aren't taken as a blueprint for real hardware and implemented as such?
I'm no hardware guy. But I have a wee bit of experience hacking on the Smalltalk virtual machine. I imagine that this is so because VMs are designed as VMs, not as a blueprint for hardware. To support an entire computer, I wouldn't be surprised if you had to add a lot more instructions than most VMs provide.
Not always. That is, there have existed virtual machines for which there was no pre-existing non-virtual counterpart. However, emulators emulate something that was designed to be non-virtual, regardless of whether anyone bothered to fab one.:)
It's also a little easy to write shitty C programs than it is to write shitty Java programs. It's quite easy to make massive memory leaks in C from not knowing how to handle pointers and such.
What it comes down to is how I want to use my time. For my use, Smalltalk and Lisp are fast enough. They are compiled languages, compiled to bytecode which is then JITed. I can get a lot more done with their benefits and only loose a little speed, speed that isn't missed for the kind of stuff I work on.
What are you trying to say here? Perhaps you meant to reply to my parent?
The fact that there are many species about which we know little or nothing has been demonstrated before. It's established and assumed.
i don't know of any "scientist" that claims to know everything. they wouldn't be a scientist if they knew everything. part of being a scientist is learning.
Indeed. That is what I said. Read before you reply.:) Go back and read my post, and my parents. I think I know what confused you. The post to which I replied was modded down, and probably below your threshhold, so you thought my post was a top-level reply. Go read it here.
Is there a point to your restating and paraphrasing of what I said? Not trying to be a dick, just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.
As a longtime user of Linux, "easy-to-use" Unices like NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody and more recently Mac OS X, Mac OS Classic, and (unfortunately) Windows, here's my take. I've not used it, but these are my impressions.
Frankly, I'm not sure what the big deal is. Lindows claims more ease of use than your average GNU/Linux distro and Windows compatibility. Having used a couple truly 'user-friendly' (subjective, yes) Unices, I can safely say the experience KDE and GNOME (to a lesser extent) provides is nice as long as you don't do certain things. When you do these things, the user-friendly-ness and consistency of environment breaks down. Even though Linux is my primary OS, it's something that has bothered me about Linux for a long time. Inconsistency.
So in short, Lindows suffers from many of the same inconsistecnies as any other KDE or GNOME- based distro.
I can't imagine it being as "easy" as Windows. Even if it were on the level with WinDOS, that isn't saying much.
But I'm pragmatic. So I don't hate Lindows for Licensing issues.;P
This finding doesn't demonstrate anything of value.
Science is about learning what we don't. I know a lot of conservative ignoramouses like to think that the "'biodiversity' harpies" and other biologists and scientists claim to know everything. Guess what, we don't! We can't know everything, and we don't. Anyone who claims that know anything 100% about the physical world isn't a real scientist.
Plenty of species are moving towards extinction. Discovering some we previously didn't know about doesn't mean that they're new, just popped up to replace gone ones.
Again, that's what you use may use a PDA for. I don't really need a PDA for looking at clear and vibrant JPGs. Porn in the toilet is of the utmost quality, I'm sure. But it's not my bag. Never have eye strain with the Newton or my iPAQ, the black on green is of high enough contrast for me. I'm sure the screen is nice, but it doesn't provide anything for me that isn't good enough elsewhere.
They keyboard is sure badass, though. A remarkable piece of industrial design.
It's very possible and doable. But no, it would take a lot of money and time to do it. Far from kitchen chemistry. Maybe not billions, but millions. First, you'd need to determine the metabolic steps between water and CO2 to get to delta-9-tetrahydracannibol. [1] Figure out all the enzymes and proteins involved. Figure out where they are in the genome. Spice forever.
[1] Also, you must consider, do you want just D9-THC? Imbibing Cannabis is different than just taking a D9-THC injection or pill; there is a lot of other minor cannaboids (D9-THC is the most abundant) that add to the 'stoned' experience. You'd have to repeat this for each cannaboid!
But most of the core ideas were developed in the 50s. Just because Win98 came out in 1998 (or was it 99?) it doesn't mean that it's technology is of the 90s. That's pretty much from the 50s too.
I should've known that comment would confuse many.
You've not noticed that yet? GNOME and KDE are not supposed to be "modern," they're supposed to be like Windows, so people used to Windows can switch. They're being largely designed and coded by ex-Windows users. And that's fine, if you like the Windows works, but want a free version of it, more power to you.
It's hard to build a modern computing environment on top of a non-modern operating system (Unix, Linux). Again, GNU/Linux *not* being modern isn't a dis, it's just the way things are. It works. I use it on my machine, largely as a host for a more modern OS (but far more spartan at this point). And no, I'm not talking about Mac OS X being some epitome of "modern," it's based on all the same things. Unix is so.... 50s in it's ideology.
And before a bunch of escaped slashtards flame me, i repeat, THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. If you like Linux, GNOME or KDE, use it. Some of us, however, are not satisfied with the limits they impose on the way we work and are trying to forge something new.
Enlightenment isn't any more modern than GNOME or KDE. But it may be a little more fun.:)
I believe the spec for PocketPC calls for a 320x240 screen. However, you can get WinCE machines that run at any resolution, far beyond any silly PalmOS device.
Sure, you can get a Sony Clie with a 480x320 screen. But why would you want to, you'd have to put up with that sad excuse of an OS. Makes a pretty kickass (and damned expensive) oraganizer, I'm sure. What good is a 480x320 screen if it's about the same size (in cm by cm) as the other options *and* there's no real handwriting recognition?
Personally, I still carry around a 5 year old Newton 2100u most of the time. I have an iPAQ as well, for development mostly. It has a 480x320 (lower DPI than the Clie, which means more space to write!) screen and a 162 MHz StrongARM. And a real OS, with the facilities to develop first-class apps while never touching a desktop. Seems like a no-brainer to me too. But we're on Slashdot, and it doesn't run Linux, so I'll just kick back and wait for the on-slaught of "h3y j00 st00p1d mac lover fsck u && UR pee-pee-pda!!!1"
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome! I'll give that a whirl when I get home.
:)
I've almost no use for the modem, but I assumed it worked. No idea though. No FireWire devices here, if I come across a simple one like a hard-drive, I'll try it for you.
Look at the sig, lil man. It's a progrmaming and operating environment. Entirely in Smalltalk. Also runs on bare metal as an OS. I live out of Squeak like many hardcore elispers live out of emacs. Gives me complete control over my computing environment.
A year ago, I sold my PowerMac G4/400 Tower to buy an iBook 500.
;P
I love it. I can safely say that this is the most satisfying computer purchase I've ever made. Not that my other computers sucked, but it just rules.
Up until a month ago, I ran Mac OS X full-time. More and more, I've been using Squeak as my operating system rather than Mac OS X proper, with the exception of web-browsing which I do in OS X. I switched back to Linux so I could work on some aspects of Squeak more easily, and tie Squeak into my environment, long story.
I'm a veteran Linux user, dumping it a couple years back to switch to Mac OS X. I've switched back, and am doing fine. Linux still sucks in many of the ways I remembered, especially in the area of GUI consistency compared to OS X. But then again, I spend a lot of my time in Squeak, not with regular X apps so it doesn't bother me much.
I installed Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r6 on this puppy and the install went as smoothly as any x86 Linux install I've ever done (and I've done more than my fair share). I was surprised to find that out. A while back, I tried to install NetBSD, and it was a pain in the rump, so I was expecting something similar for Debian. Piece of cake. Upgraded to Woody without any problems.
I can even close the lid and have the 'book go to sleep, just like in OS 9 and X. It doesn't wake up as lightning fast as OS X does, but eh, I expected worse!
This machine is fast and durable. Incidentally, that's what I wanted from a computer. I'm sure you can get faster iBooks and PowerBooks and maybe even a faster PC notebook, but this does what I need and them some.
Sound still doesn't work, to my knowledge. This is a bummer, but not a huge deal.
I have my right command and enter keys mapped to do the job of my other mouse buttons. No, it's not a pain in the ass. Quite natural. I have a USB mouse, but haven't felt any need to figure out how to get it working in X11 yet. XFree runs fast enough, some room for graphics speed up though.
Don't see the big deal aobut a PCMCIA slot. This baby has everything I need on board, which IMO is a helluva lot better than to have to futz with PC cards. USB to serial adaptor works like a charm with the Newton.
Aaron
I use Linux on my iBook. With no external mouse. Yet, I get along fine. What is my secret? I have the right Command key mapped to the middle button, and the enter key by the arrow d-pad mapped to be the right mouse button. No problem there.
You can always use an external mouse too. I have a decent three button (no scroll-wheel, thank god) Sun mouse, but haven't bothered to figure out how to get it working in X. Haven't felt the need to find out.
You can do that by substituting "Windows" for "Mac OS X." Like the other poster said, Mac OS X loves a lot of RAM. CPU speed isn't the issue here, the 128 MB of RAM is. Yeah, that sucks. But that's why it may feel slow. I can say that a lot of what I do feels a lot faster in Debian Woody on my iBook 500 than it did in Mac OS X. Not everything, though. However, I have 320 MB RAM which is plenty for OS X in my experience.
Well, I'd still love to get a Self machine. :)
If you wish, then toss out the server example. There are times when better Java performance is desired. Including small devices and on the desktop. It's for those applications, regardless of where, such a co-processor would be nice. There are a fair amount of companies who are investing a lot into creating Java desktop apps, and many of them have suboptimal performance on today's machines. Sure, CPUs will get faster.
There are also a few people doing math-based research using Java. It would be amazing to be able to use RMI and a shared class pool to do distributed processing. Who needs entire computers to farm out computations to, when you have a 4 Java CPUs on a PCI card?
No, this kind of technology isn't required. We're getting along, using Java, without it today. But it could be nice for some applications.
PocketLinux wasn't so much out-competed as it was abandoned. They weren't poised to compete. Like a lot of open source companies, they expected the community to really take interest and start churning out apps for them. A lot of the Linux-nerd-world isn't into Java, they're still using C. That's all good, but you can't write (GUI) apps for PocketLinux in C. They're market, initially, wasn't end-users. It was the same group of people who read Slashdot and now own Zaurus and Agendas.
Is this Jecel? :)
/me looks in the mirror
Sorry, don't follow you. I don't have the same attitude, having practical experience in the "real world" designing and developing, I've found that some VM-based languages can be slow, even if code is designed well. Usually, performances depends on the code itself.
Sure, having an opinion based on ignorance is valid. However, it's still rooted in ignorance. One of the purposes of discussion is to share information, and that's what I do.
But has anybody given any thought to making a VM that runs almost on top of the hardware with almost no system calls?
It's been done many times since the 70s. Not sure the first time a VM-based language was the OS, but it was the case with Smalltalk, as far back as 1972 or 1976. You can still get a Smalltalk-based OS with SqueakNOS. Squeak traditionally runs on top of a host OS like Linux, Mac OS, Windows and many others, but it has almost all of the features of an OS, including an awesome (but non-traditional) GUI system, compleat with remote viewing. The binaries are identical between the OS-version of Squeak an the hosted-on-Linux version.
The current state of SqueakNOS is that you still have to write a little C for certain things. Luckily, you can write your low-level code in a subset of Smalltalk and have it translated to C. That's how the Squeak virtual machine is written, no manual C coding required. However, there is active work being done on Squeampiler, which allows Squeak itself to compile and generate native code. Which means the entire system 100% will be in Smalltalk.
As it is now, if you want to change (in SqueakNOS or Squeak on top of a 'normal' OS) fundamental changes to the language can be made within the environment. The only thing compiled to C is the virtual machine and other C plugins, like OS-specific functions. Everything else, the bytecode compiler, the parser, an emulator for itself, all the development tools and libraries are all written in Smalltalk.
I am working on an operating environment for PDAs, Dynapad along these lines. I'm doing the development on top of Linux/PPC, Solaris/SPARC, and Windows/x86 and run it on my iPAQ under WinCE/ARM. Eventually, I'd like to run it as the OS, if something like OSKit ever makes it's way to the iPAQ platform.
There are many virtual machines are aren't bloated. How large is the JVM? Just the JVM, not the library (jars, class files). I imagine it's pretty large. Just because Java is poorly done it doesn't mean all languages with VMs are as bloated. Smalltalk, which is by all measures a language with a huge library, can have a VM as small as 100k, but still get to all the standard libraries. Sure, you could target it to hardware, but if the language is well designed (like Smalltalk, not like Java) it's not as much of an issue.
Not even the JVM includes anything near the kitchen sink. The libraries do. They're not terribly hard to port when all they do is interpret bytecodes.
It's sad to see people with these kind of attitudes. In their minds, all virtual machine-based languages equals Java. Anything that's not compiled directly to native code equals QBasic. That's not the case.
Parrot is what got me interested in perl. Perl is too inconsistent for me to take very seriously, but Parrot is promising as a .NET work-a-like with no MS tie-ins. :)
There's no reason that it can't be both machine independent and have an accelorator chip. You can get SSL accelorators, yet, I can still run SSL on this machine, which hasn't one.
It would be useful for certain applications for the computer to have a (or multiple!) hardware Java chips to speed up execution of Java code. Java servlets, for example. Sun is hyping Java on the server side awfully hard. But they can be slow, especially when you have thousands going at a time.
You could have this *and* a cross-platform VM. They're not mutually exclusive. Schmucks in Windows can still run Limewire with a setup like this on some machines.
The Zaurus doesn't use Java exclusively. From my playing with them, Java (like elsewhere) is still very much as second-class citizen in Qtopia. PocketLinux, which is now defunct (no doubt because Java sucks- sorry, couldn't help it) was a PDA operating environment that ran on top of Linux that used Java exclusively.
Actually, it has been attempted. Sun created a java chip, called picoJava. There also is an ARM chip with a hardware interpreter for JVM bytecodes, Jazelle. There are plenty of other examples of this.
Nothing that sits on the mobo to supplement a 'real' CPU tho.
Is there a reason why these virtual machines aren't taken as a blueprint for real hardware and implemented as such?
I'm no hardware guy. But I have a wee bit of experience hacking on the Smalltalk virtual machine. I imagine that this is so because VMs are designed as VMs, not as a blueprint for hardware. To support an entire computer, I wouldn't be surprised if you had to add a lot more instructions than most VMs provide.
Not always. That is, there have existed virtual machines for which there was no pre-existing non-virtual counterpart. However, emulators emulate something that was designed to be non-virtual, regardless of whether anyone bothered to fab one. :)
It's also a little easy to write shitty C programs than it is to write shitty Java programs. It's quite easy to make massive memory leaks in C from not knowing how to handle pointers and such.
What it comes down to is how I want to use my time. For my use, Smalltalk and Lisp are fast enough. They are compiled languages, compiled to bytecode which is then JITed. I can get a lot more done with their benefits and only loose a little speed, speed that isn't missed for the kind of stuff I work on.
What are you trying to say here? Perhaps you meant to reply to my parent?
:) Go back and read my post, and my parents. I think I know what confused you. The post to which I replied was modded down, and probably below your threshhold, so you thought my post was a top-level reply. Go read it here.
The fact that there are many species about which we know little or nothing has been demonstrated before. It's established and assumed.
i don't know of any "scientist" that claims to know everything. they wouldn't be a scientist if they knew everything. part of being a scientist is learning.
Indeed. That is what I said. Read before you reply.
Is there a point to your restating and paraphrasing of what I said? Not trying to be a dick, just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.
As a longtime user of Linux, "easy-to-use" Unices like NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody and more recently Mac OS X, Mac OS Classic, and (unfortunately) Windows, here's my take. I've not used it, but these are my impressions.
;P
Frankly, I'm not sure what the big deal is. Lindows claims more ease of use than your average GNU/Linux distro and Windows compatibility. Having used a couple truly 'user-friendly' (subjective, yes) Unices, I can safely say the experience KDE and GNOME (to a lesser extent) provides is nice as long as you don't do certain things. When you do these things, the user-friendly-ness and consistency of environment breaks down. Even though Linux is my primary OS, it's something that has bothered me about Linux for a long time. Inconsistency.
So in short, Lindows suffers from many of the same inconsistecnies as any other KDE or GNOME- based distro.
I can't imagine it being as "easy" as Windows. Even if it were on the level with WinDOS, that isn't saying much.
But I'm pragmatic. So I don't hate Lindows for Licensing issues.
This finding doesn't demonstrate anything of value.
Science is about learning what we don't. I know a lot of conservative ignoramouses like to think that the "'biodiversity' harpies" and other biologists and scientists claim to know everything. Guess what, we don't! We can't know everything, and we don't. Anyone who claims that know anything 100% about the physical world isn't a real scientist.
Plenty of species are moving towards extinction. Discovering some we previously didn't know about doesn't mean that they're new, just popped up to replace gone ones.
Again, that's what you use may use a PDA for. I don't really need a PDA for looking at clear and vibrant JPGs. Porn in the toilet is of the utmost quality, I'm sure. But it's not my bag. Never have eye strain with the Newton or my iPAQ, the black on green is of high enough contrast for me. I'm sure the screen is nice, but it doesn't provide anything for me that isn't good enough elsewhere.
They keyboard is sure badass, though. A remarkable piece of industrial design.
It's very possible and doable. But no, it would take a lot of money and time to do it. Far from kitchen chemistry. Maybe not billions, but millions. First, you'd need to determine the metabolic steps between water and CO2 to get to delta-9-tetrahydracannibol. [1] Figure out all the enzymes and proteins involved. Figure out where they are in the genome. Spice forever.
[1] Also, you must consider, do you want just D9-THC? Imbibing Cannabis is different than just taking a D9-THC injection or pill; there is a lot of other minor cannaboids (D9-THC is the most abundant) that add to the 'stoned' experience. You'd have to repeat this for each cannaboid!
*sigh*
But most of the core ideas were developed in the 50s. Just because Win98 came out in 1998 (or was it 99?) it doesn't mean that it's technology is of the 90s. That's pretty much from the 50s too.
I should've known that comment would confuse many.
You've not noticed that yet? GNOME and KDE are not supposed to be "modern," they're supposed to be like Windows, so people used to Windows can switch. They're being largely designed and coded by ex-Windows users. And that's fine, if you like the Windows works, but want a free version of it, more power to you.
:)
It's hard to build a modern computing environment on top of a non-modern operating system (Unix, Linux). Again, GNU/Linux *not* being modern isn't a dis, it's just the way things are. It works. I use it on my machine, largely as a host for a more modern OS (but far more spartan at this point). And no, I'm not talking about Mac OS X being some epitome of "modern," it's based on all the same things. Unix is so.... 50s in it's ideology.
And before a bunch of escaped slashtards flame me, i repeat, THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. If you like Linux, GNOME or KDE, use it. Some of us, however, are not satisfied with the limits they impose on the way we work and are trying to forge something new.
Enlightenment isn't any more modern than GNOME or KDE. But it may be a little more fun.
I believe the spec for PocketPC calls for a 320x240 screen. However, you can get WinCE machines that run at any resolution, far beyond any silly PalmOS device.
:)
Sure, you can get a Sony Clie with a 480x320 screen. But why would you want to, you'd have to put up with that sad excuse of an OS. Makes a pretty kickass (and damned expensive) oraganizer, I'm sure. What good is a 480x320 screen if it's about the same size (in cm by cm) as the other options *and* there's no real handwriting recognition?
Personally, I still carry around a 5 year old Newton 2100u most of the time. I have an iPAQ as well, for development mostly. It has a 480x320 (lower DPI than the Clie, which means more space to write!) screen and a 162 MHz StrongARM. And a real OS, with the facilities to develop first-class apps while never touching a desktop. Seems like a no-brainer to me too. But we're on Slashdot, and it doesn't run Linux, so I'll just kick back and wait for the on-slaught of "h3y j00 st00p1d mac lover fsck u && UR pee-pee-pda!!!1"
Have fun at your parade!
It has a bigger screen. I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell I'd use a 160x160 screen (ha!) for more than a clock.