Wouldn't that make the iPAQ 3150, which I've seen around for $150 *including* the CF sleeve really the cheapest and most practical option, especially if you're talking about just running Linux on it?
The answer is a definate maybe. The problem with Linux PDAs is that they all use their own data format, and more often than not, not follow any standard. What a Linux PDA lacks (and something I'm putting into my PDA environment, DynaPad) is a data-store like that of the Newton. On the current generation of Linux PDAs, most syncing seems to be achieved by coping TXT or XML files, or in some cases, having a sync app. However, this sync app doesn't know about new databases and records, other than those it's been explicitly told about- and this is more often than not limited to Contacts and Dates. It's really quite sad.
Micah knows what he is doing. PicoGUI is quite rad, and I encourage you to check it out if you're looking for an intelligent GUI system. Damn fast on something like the Helio, too. (rev, occasionally on #picogui)
Re:Shafted by Psion, but probably not there fault.
on
PSION Resurrected By Linux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Heh. The things you love about your netBook seem to be found also in the iBook. In OS X, coming back on from sleep takes a second. I'm not sure how it does it, but I kid you not. Same with the bundled office apps. Tinkering? Well, this is a Mac- the idea is that you don't *have* to tinker. And yes, 5-6 hours of battery life.
Well, I generally laugh at Java too, even though I don't do game development. heh.
In any case, this kind of game doesn't seem to be as speed-dependent, as for example, is a FPS. For this type of game, I think the focus would be more on cool features, a more engrossing world, interesting AIs, interesting networking methods. Something a higher-level language should be able to handle with ease.
This is a bit Off Topic but there are some major advantages to going with C#. First, think of the advantages of using a GC'd platform like Java. Second, think about not using pointers unless it's absolutely necessary. Third, think about an incredibley intuitive and powerfull class library that allows you to focus less on the "plumbing" and more on the creation of cool software.
But there's nothing new in those features. Sure, they're things outside of the domain of C/C++, but languages like Common Lisp and Smalltalk have had those for 20 years. C# doesn't have anything that they dont' really, other than a huge amount of marketing dollars. The.NET VM/CLR system however, is quite interesting, and could also present an advantage for a project, perhaps allowing different developers to work on their own components in the system, but without having to settle for C#.
Linux is for suits. Or sell-out geeks. Or geeks which really want a language like Smalltalk or Common Lisp, but either are ignorant of their existence and maturity, or are programmed to immediately dismiss all languages with a non-BCPL-derived syntax.
What's the sense in blocking WebWasher? If you block people, people aren't going to see your ads anyway, the people blocking them are exactly the people who aren't going to click on them anyway. And especially as WebWasher has an option to hide itself!
The logic is that you don't get the content that those ads are paying for. Sure, it has the option of hiding itself, but this is better than nothing. It seems that this option isn't turned on by default, or I would think that you wouldn't have run into the problem.
Besides, I doubt that that person would want to buy a Mac as they seem solidly convinced that they
don't perform as well as claimed when properly comparing the performance.
I know very well that my iBook with a 500 MHz G3 doesn't perform the same as a 1 GHz P4. However, raw performance is definately not the most important thing in a computer. What matters is that I can do what I want to do. This requirement encompasses an adequate speed, naturally. However, I'm not willing to sacrifice the ability to what I want to do in the way I want to do it in order to gain MHz bragging rights, getting stuck running Linux or (eek) Windows. Some people seem to have other priorities, tyo each her own.
I use Squeak Smalltalk (see link below) for the same reason you use Java. But luckily, in my research, the software doesn't need to be really maintained, I just need to use it personally to visualize and generate graphs and HTML.
You'd think they'd have a little more on phylogeny, since so much of that is comparisons of different proteins among species. But yeah, not much money in "real" science.;)
Oh yes, I am a bioinformatician, and I know it. However, with this big trend with many dollars behind it, any bioinformatics worth mentions outside of real biology has to do with computational genomics or molecular biology. It's like telling people you're an anarchist; they think you mean you're one of those 14 year old kids who smoke their dad's ciagrettes when he's not home and have the circle-A patch on their pack-packs.
While Graffiti and other character recognition schemes (e.g. Jot) annoy the snot out of me for anything other than entering names and dates, I find the most usable, consistent, and fast, both in the long run and today as far as input into a PDA is still real handwriting recognition. We're talking about the Apple Newton MP2x00 or a WinCE device with ParaGraph's CalliGrapher installed. Having used both quite a bit, it's the only way to go. It's natural and quick to write both natural language texts and even code, depending on the language.
I find that writing a language of BCPL-syntax lineage like C or NewtonScript is a pain in the ass to write in HWR. However, languages like Smalltalk and LISP (the languages luckily [for a number of reasons] I use the most often) work very well as translated from handwriting to text. Sometimes a opening paren is thought of as a C, but both the Newton and CalliGrapher have a tiny punctuation keyboard that works great for this. Writing in C or Perl may be a little harder, as both the syntax tends to be more silly, and the variables and function naming conventions often are very non-natural-language. (e.g., Scheme's string->number function, or Smalltalk's asNumber are easily recognized as composite words rather than something like atoi in C.)
And yes, they keep up with messy handwriting. You should see mine.:-/ I just did an informal test on my iPAQ 3150, and I got around 45 minutes/min. I wrote for two minutes, and then counted the words, excluding half of the tiny words (a, it, is, I) and divided by two. Not bad, considering that it requires no training. That 45/min includes fixing mixing mistakes. My Newton is be a little bit slower at it, which can be attributed to a number of things.
It's no wonder I can manage to take all of my class notes on a PDA with actual HWR, but you don't see people with Palm OS devices in a graduate level college course taking their notes.;)
This book seems to equate biology with genomics/bioinformatics, when that is simply not the case. There are a fair amount of scientists in the general school of biology who *are not* bioinformaticians. As a person who does computational ecology, this book really wouldn't help me- and I am a biologist. Sure, DNA is swell, but it won't tell us about the complex interactions between a number of populations of organisms and the environment in which they live; it doesn't provide strategies and formulas (or references to perl modules?) that *other* kinds of biologists use....sigh.
Carmack was a huge NeXT fiend. Quake and Doom were developed under NeXTSTEP, and the only reason (that he cites) he switched to NT was that it became kind of an necessity, with there not being many OpenGL-accelerated cards that worked under *STEP.
If I can convince apple to do a good hardware accelerated OpenGL in rhapsody, I would be very likely to give my win NT machine the cold shoulder and do future development on rhapsody.
More Carmack-style old pro-OS X ranting can be found here. There's a lot more around, but I gotta run. Google reveals all.
Quake and Doom were developed under NeXTSTEP. Carmack loves NeXT as a platform for both the end user as well as the developer. He's made various statements in his.plans throughout the ages and still dedicates his love to NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody and Mac OS X.
I can't recall. It's been too long. I wouldn't be surprised if it were running in Standard (8086) mode rather than Enhanced (386), I think that was an easy way to sandbox the environment. But I'm not positive, I only gave that functionality a try, but didn't need/want to run any Win 3.1 apps. I'm still confused about how people suffered through Win 3.1 when they could've run GEOS or Mac OS, both of which, in my experience, were a helluva lot more robust and user friendly (both being relative terms).
One cool thing about DV/X I forgot to mention was that it could export this Win 3.1 window as an X application, so you could run Win 3.1 and its apps remotely. Never used that functuality, having only a single computer with a single modem, but it seemed cool. Again, there are plenty of Windows products that do this now (with current Win32 apps), as well as WINE. Hell, you could achieve the same with running Bochs or VMWare running Win 3.1 remotely.
I used to use DV and DV/X through through the eras of DOS, Win 3.1 and Win95. All of my apps were DOS-based, but I still wanted to multitask. That, and DV was able to do something very important for me as a BBSer that Win 3.1 couldn't- have a ZModem download in ProComm+ going in the background while actually *doing* something else.So, yes, I have some experience.
In any case, the release of DV/X wouldn't help WINE in any way, really. DV DV/X allowed you to run Win 3.1 apps in the same way that you can run Classic Mac OS apps in Mac OS X, or that OS/2 2.1 could run Win 3.1 apps. Win 3.1 ran in a little box all to itself. It ran the entire Win 3.1 OE, not implemented the API (as Wine and Odin do). You can see a screenshot of this here.
DV/X was pretty cool, esp. for a DOS user in those days, but it isn't really relevant anymore. I could see people with old DOS machines who wanted the binaries, that makes perfect sense. However, there's really nothing to be gained from the release of the source. It's not like someone can port it to MS-DOS/PowerPC.;)
Re:I thought it had one shot value
on
Review: Kung Pow
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Unfortunately, colleges are very much so becoming just employee factories. Rather, that's the way their pitched to kids throughout their entire life, and the school accomodates them and corporation's will by being one. This is true in nothing more than CS it self. Churning a bunch of kids that have no interest in CS, only getting a job and playing a little Q3.
Word. I agree. However, one of my majors is Computer Science, but that's because I have an interest in CS (and not so much computers in general) - unlike all the other schmucks enrolled in the program.
And assembler is faster than C. So you must be a fool for using C! Oh, you say that it's a pain in the ass to program in Asm? Well, for those of us who have seen Lisp, C is just as much of a pain as assembler. Whatever tiny bit of performance using C over Lisp can produce, it's not worth my time and pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh! Freudian slip! I mean Java, not Linux. ;P
I own one too. I get 5 hours of regular work in Mac OS 9, easy. On an iBook500, even.
Wouldn't that make the iPAQ 3150, which I've seen around for $150 *including* the CF sleeve really the cheapest and most practical option, especially if you're talking about just running Linux on it?
The answer is a definate maybe. The problem with Linux PDAs is that they all use their own data format, and more often than not, not follow any standard. What a Linux PDA lacks (and something I'm putting into my PDA environment, DynaPad) is a data-store like that of the Newton. On the current generation of Linux PDAs, most syncing seems to be achieved by coping TXT or XML files, or in some cases, having a sync app. However, this sync app doesn't know about new databases and records, other than those it's been explicitly told about- and this is more often than not limited to Contacts and Dates. It's really quite sad.
Micah knows what he is doing. PicoGUI is quite rad, and I encourage you to check it out if you're looking for an intelligent GUI system. Damn fast on something like the Helio, too. (rev, occasionally on #picogui)
Heh. The things you love about your netBook seem to be found also in the iBook. In OS X, coming back on from sleep takes a second. I'm not sure how it does it, but I kid you not. Same with the bundled office apps. Tinkering? Well, this is a Mac- the idea is that you don't *have* to tinker. And yes, 5-6 hours of battery life.
In any case, this kind of game doesn't seem to be as speed-dependent, as for example, is a FPS. For this type of game, I think the focus would be more on cool features, a more engrossing world, interesting AIs, interesting networking methods. Something a higher-level language should be able to handle with ease.
But there's nothing new in those features. Sure, they're things outside of the domain of C/C++, but languages like Common Lisp and Smalltalk have had those for 20 years. C# doesn't have anything that they dont' really, other than a huge amount of marketing dollars. The .NET VM/CLR system however, is quite interesting, and could also present an advantage for a project, perhaps allowing different developers to work on their own components in the system, but without having to settle for C#.
Linux is for suits. Or sell-out geeks. Or geeks which really want a language like Smalltalk or Common Lisp, but either are ignorant of their existence and maturity, or are programmed to immediately dismiss all languages with a non-BCPL-derived syntax.
The logic is that you don't get the content that those ads are paying for. Sure, it has the option of hiding itself, but this is better than nothing. It seems that this option isn't turned on by default, or I would think that you wouldn't have run into the problem.
don't perform as well as claimed when properly comparing the performance.
I know very well that my iBook with a 500 MHz G3 doesn't perform the same as a 1 GHz P4. However, raw performance is definately not the most important thing in a computer. What matters is that I can do what I want to do. This requirement encompasses an adequate speed, naturally. However, I'm not willing to sacrifice the ability to what I want to do in the way I want to do it in order to gain MHz bragging rights, getting stuck running Linux or (eek) Windows. Some people seem to have other priorities, tyo each her own.
I use Squeak Smalltalk (see link below) for the same reason you use Java. But luckily, in my research, the software doesn't need to be really maintained, I just need to use it personally to visualize and generate graphs and HTML.
You'd think they'd have a little more on phylogeny, since so much of that is comparisons of different proteins among species. But yeah, not much money in "real" science. ;)
Oh yes, I am a bioinformatician, and I know it. However, with this big trend with many dollars behind it, any bioinformatics worth mentions outside of real biology has to do with computational genomics or molecular biology. It's like telling people you're an anarchist; they think you mean you're one of those 14 year old kids who smoke their dad's ciagrettes when he's not home and have the circle-A patch on their pack-packs.
While Graffiti and other character recognition schemes (e.g. Jot) annoy the snot out of me for anything other than entering names and dates, I find the most usable, consistent, and fast, both in the long run and today as far as input into a PDA is still real handwriting recognition. We're talking about the Apple Newton MP2x00 or a WinCE device with ParaGraph's CalliGrapher installed. Having used both quite a bit, it's the only way to go. It's natural and quick to write both natural language texts and even code, depending on the language.
:-/ I just did an informal test on my iPAQ 3150, and I got around 45 minutes/min. I wrote for two minutes, and then counted the words, excluding half of the tiny words (a, it, is, I) and divided by two. Not bad, considering that it requires no training. That 45/min includes fixing mixing mistakes. My Newton is be a little bit slower at it, which can be attributed to a number of things.
;)
I find that writing a language of BCPL-syntax lineage like C or NewtonScript is a pain in the ass to write in HWR. However, languages like Smalltalk and LISP (the languages luckily [for a number of reasons] I use the most often) work very well as translated from handwriting to text. Sometimes a opening paren is thought of as a C, but both the Newton and CalliGrapher have a tiny punctuation keyboard that works great for this. Writing in C or Perl may be a little harder, as both the syntax tends to be more silly, and the variables and function naming conventions often are very non-natural-language. (e.g., Scheme's string->number function, or Smalltalk's asNumber are easily recognized as composite words rather than something like atoi in C.)
And yes, they keep up with messy handwriting. You should see mine.
It's no wonder I can manage to take all of my class notes on a PDA with actual HWR, but you don't see people with Palm OS devices in a graduate level college course taking their notes.
This book seems to equate biology with genomics/bioinformatics, when that is simply not the case. There are a fair amount of scientists in the general school of biology who *are not* bioinformaticians. As a person who does computational ecology, this book really wouldn't help me- and I am a biologist. Sure, DNA is swell, but it won't tell us about the complex interactions between a number of populations of organisms and the environment in which they live; it doesn't provide strategies and formulas (or references to perl modules?) that *other* kinds of biologists use. ...sigh.
Here you will find this lovely quote:
If I can convince apple to do a good hardware accelerated OpenGL in rhapsody, I would be very likely to give my win NT machine the cold shoulder and do future development on rhapsody.
More Carmack-style old pro-OS X ranting can be found here. There's a lot more around, but I gotta run. Google reveals all.
Quake and Doom were developed under NeXTSTEP. Carmack loves NeXT as a platform for both the end user as well as the developer. He's made various statements in his .plans throughout the ages and still dedicates his love to NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody and Mac OS X.
I can't recall. It's been too long. I wouldn't be surprised if it were running in Standard (8086) mode rather than Enhanced (386), I think that was an easy way to sandbox the environment. But I'm not positive, I only gave that functionality a try, but didn't need/want to run any Win 3.1 apps. I'm still confused about how people suffered through Win 3.1 when they could've run GEOS or Mac OS, both of which, in my experience, were a helluva lot more robust and user friendly (both being relative terms).
One cool thing about DV/X I forgot to mention was that it could export this Win 3.1 window as an X application, so you could run Win 3.1 and its apps remotely. Never used that functuality, having only a single computer with a single modem, but it seemed cool. Again, there are plenty of Windows products that do this now (with current Win32 apps), as well as WINE. Hell, you could achieve the same with running Bochs or VMWare running Win 3.1 remotely.
In any case, the release of DV/X wouldn't help WINE in any way, really. DV DV/X allowed you to run Win 3.1 apps in the same way that you can run Classic Mac OS apps in Mac OS X, or that OS/2 2.1 could run Win 3.1 apps. Win 3.1 ran in a little box all to itself. It ran the entire Win 3.1 OE, not implemented the API (as Wine and Odin do). You can see a screenshot of this here.
DV/X was pretty cool, esp. for a DOS user in those days, but it isn't really relevant anymore. I could see people with old DOS machines who wanted the binaries, that makes perfect sense. However, there's really nothing to be gained from the release of the source. It's not like someone can port it to MS-DOS/PowerPC. ;)
Shut up, you filfthy man-animal!
Unfortunately, colleges are very much so becoming just employee factories. Rather, that's the way their pitched to kids throughout their entire life, and the school accomodates them and corporation's will by being one. This is true in nothing more than CS it self. Churning a bunch of kids that have no interest in CS, only getting a job and playing a little Q3.
Word. I agree. However, one of my majors is Computer Science, but that's because I have an interest in CS (and not so much computers in general) - unlike all the other schmucks enrolled in the program.
And assembler is faster than C. So you must be a fool for using C! Oh, you say that it's a pain in the ass to program in Asm? Well, for those of us who have seen Lisp, C is just as much of a pain as assembler. Whatever tiny bit of performance using C over Lisp can produce, it's not worth my time and pain.