I just bought a new 15" PB (got it 3 days ago, read about my adventures in my.sig). Let me give you a little review of two-finger scrolling.
I came from a Windows laptop that you could scroll using the touchpad. You'd either have your finger on the right edge of the pad (for verticle) or on the bottom edge (for horizontal). That was a VERY nifty feature that I loved and used all the time.
So then I got the Mac. Before Apple announced that feature I was planning to use SideTrack so I could get the scrolling, but when Apple announced it I decided to give their way a try. Here is my review: IT ROCKS!
It is SO easy to do and works flawlessly. You don't need to know where your finger is on the pad. It doesn't matter how far apart the two fingers are, it works great. I've found myself using my index and ring fingers for it (just seems comfortable). It scrolls so easily and naturally it took absolutly no time to get used it. It's a fantastic feature.
My only complaint: on my Windows laptop I could drag to scroll and then lift my finger and it would keep scrolling. I would like that functionality too, but it's no big deal.
So in short, if you've got an Apple laptop I suggest you try this if it does work (I haven't tested it, but I have no doubts as this is a hardware feature not a software feature, I think), I bet you'll love it.
Hmm. Odd that there are cutouts then. My only guess would be that older units are just better at recieving the signal when it's weaker, is your unit that old?
As for the Alpine unit, that's true. But to get that you have to have a $600+ Alpine head unit or so, don't you? Then you add the $100 interface and the $200 iPod and you're up near $1000. If Apple could do it for $500 that would be great. And just having it all in one package from start (instead of having to get all that stuff and assemble it yourself) could be great. But I don't expect them to make such a thing anyways.
Part of this is just where you are. I'm in Kansas as have XM mounted on a truck, and it works great. Around the large metro area there isn't a problem, and I think we even have a terrestrial repeated. When driving out in the country the signal is great and the buffer that the radios obviously have is enough to keep things going under most every bridge and overpass. It's only if you actually get STOPPED under one I've really noticed it. Driven down to Texas and back and never had a problem, signal is good the whole time. Having that much signal fadeing sounds odd, and I would say it's either a bad reciever (in that newer ones are better and more effective), bad antenna placement (can make an antenna less useful), or position (the signal from a satellite over the equator will be stronger in Texas than in Maine or Alaska).
As for the signal inside a brick building, I agree that he must have been by a terrestrial repeater (that or he was on the top floor so there wasn't much in the way of the signal).
The antenna for a car XM unit is about 1" square, but that is because it sticks to a large metal car body that acts as a ground plane. The home antennas for XM units are squares that are 2" to 3" per side. They get pretty good signals too.
I never understood how they could put a decent antenna inside that little unit. Sounds like I was right. The problem would only be worse if the unit was smaller (like an iPod). It's easy to pick up that 100,000 watt FM station that's 20 miles away with a little tiny antenna. But picking up a satellite whose signal is broadcast across the whole US with a tiny antenna (and the signal is probably not 100,000 watts at the source either)... it can't be easy.
Now if you were in a metro area where XM has singal repeaters on the ground, things might be better. Are you in such an area? There is usually a symbol next to the signal strength meter if you are getting the signal from a relay station.
I'm with another poster. This would work better as a "CarPod". A combination iPod/Satellite/AM/FM/CD/Radio unit for your car, not some little portable (I would buy one in a heartbeat.)
They radios can actually be made quite small. There is an XM handheld that is about the size of a tapeplayer or so. The antenna is integrated on that unit (I think) and the antenna for my father's car XM unit is only about 1" square (because of the high frequencies used, they are very small).
That said, I think they would definatly have to increase the size of the iPod (maybe double as thick what the lowest capacity iPod is) to make it work. It wouldn't be a tiny addition (like an FM radio might be). See my other post in this topic for my other thoughts.
I'm not suprised at all. Let's look at the reasons why:
Size - The iPod is small. While the Delphi portable XM radio is not big, it's much bigger than an iPod. So you'd have to make the iPod bigger (or at least much thicker) do it it.
Demand - People are having hard times finding iPod Shuffles because they are very hard to keep in stock. The "old" iPods are still selling like hotcakes too. Apple doesn't need the help/feature to sell iPods, they are doing fine now.
Demand 2 - How many people are actually demanding one of these things? First to use it (or at least the main feature that differentiantes it from a normal iPod) you have to pay a monthly fee. And to record the Sirrius content (assuming they allow that which would be a major reason to get one) you'd either have to keep it running (battery would die fast) or keep it plugged into the wall (so it could only record things when sitting in it's cradle at night for example). You want it to record a program that comes on at 2:00 PM? Better find a cradle you can stick it in (that has an antenna setup) so it can record it.
Battery - As already mentioned, having that radio in there would use battery. And to have it record live radio so you can pause it (like the Delphi unit does) you have to run the audio electionics, the satellite radio electronics, and the hard drive. That has GOT to be a battery drain.
Complexity - Not only is that a lot of stuff to put into a small box, but the interface would probably suffer too. Navigating radio stations wouldn't be too hard, but how do you make it so you can easily schedule recordings and such? I think it would be hard to make that as clean as the rest of the iPod UI while making it integrate well.
Why Sirrius? - If the satellite iPod is such a hot product (I admit it sounds intereting), why should they use Sirrius? Isn't XM doing better? And either way, I'm sure XM would KILL to get that deal too, so why not play them both off of eachother for a while to get better terms? You don't have to accept the first formal offer. Heck, Apple probably has enough clout that they could make BOTH a Sirrius iPod and an XM iPod (none of those "you can't work with out compeditor" contracts) because the idea is supposedly so lucrative.
Sirrius and XM to merge - As long as you are talking about rumors, there was that rumor that the two would merge and then where would Apple be? They might want to hold off because of that speculation.
New Products - Last is the iPod line. We got the Mini a year ago, 4th gens not too long ago, with the iPod Photo about the same time. We got the iPod Shuffle last month. I'd think they'd want to wait a year before introducing anything more than an evolution (like 2nd gen to 3rd gen).
I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but I think it is definatly too early. It will be a while before we see such a thing. I don't see how it could happen right now. Just doesn't seem to make sense.
This is pretty normal isn't it? I seem to remember that when part of the Windows source was stolen (also with HL2 I think) people posted some of the more interesting/colorful comments in the code to the web. So I'm not suprised to see this issue come up.
That said, why not just strip the comments and release it that way untill the comments can be cleaned, or better yet run it through a program to filter out offensive language.
I mean, it's not like the variables have naughty names, right?
I've always been interested in Computers and this naturally brought me towards programming. When I first tried Linux I was very suprised to learn that development tools were free and so easily available, the same is now true on the Macintosh also (in the GNU software today, and in the HyperCard demo in days of old). But Windows has never (to my knowledge, at least Win 95 or later) shipped with any development tools, even as an option to install.
Now I realize that Microsoft makes free development tools available on the internet (in the form of CLI compilers), but why doesn't Microsoft (at least as an option) provide a development environment as an option during install (the above mentioned programs would suffice), or try to make the avaialibility of those tools more well known?
I must say that because much of my early programming was done under Linux, I've gotten quite used to and familiar with the various GNU tools and prefer to use them. I can't help but wonder if those kind of things were available on Windows when I started programming (without having to buy seperate packages like CodeWarrior, Visual Studio, and others) that I may prefer that environment.
If you are interested in programming, it simply seems easier to start on Linux or OS X because the tools are already there and that fact is well publicized. Does Microsoft have any plan to try to remedy this situation?
Likie I said, I understand that completely. There are some VERY nice applications on Linux and having the toolkit available on Windows makes them available for everyone.
But why KDE the desktop environment? I don't see how there is much of a call for that at all.
OK, I like Qt, it's a great toolkit. That said, I have a serious question.
The article says that they are getting ready to release an updated version of Qt for Windows for GPLed software to use. So far this is much like article posted a few days ago.
But the article here talks about this being important so that people can run KDE (the desktop environment) on Windows without having to rurn Cygwin. Now while I understand not wanting to use Cygwin (it works, but it feels like a hack because in a way it is). That said, here is my main question:
Why would you want to run KDE on Windows. I understand the "because you can" theory (which is cool), but does anyone actually want to do this full time? Why? Why not run Linux or BSD? I understand wanting to be able to run GPLed software that uses QT (JuK as one example, or other such software, maybe even Konq), but why KDE?
That's true. But there are two important things here. The first is that it's at 4ghz. The P4 hasn't been able to reach that (though Intel origionally said it would happen by now). So it's all ready up there.
The second is that it's STARTING at 4ghz. It's one thing to say a chip can scale and run at some speed (again, I'm looking at you Intel), but to debut it running faster than the fastest mass produced CPU in the world is something all together different.
Cell should be quite formidable, and I think it will be quite interesting to see what comes of it. I've held the opinion for a few years that computers would move to having a couple of CPUs each running their own task (like in Cell), with one main (quite possibly slower) CPU controlling them all and running the OS (traffic cop, again like in the Cell). While the individual processing units are not general purpose (they are more vector oriented), it should still be interesting to see what comes of this. After all, most things people use high-end CPUs for are (or can be) vector ops, right? Compression, 3D, etc. Wordprocessing and spreadsheets don't tend to need much power. A large generalization, I know, but still... the introduction of the Cell (especiall the way it should be able to "group" its self with other Cell processors in your house) should prove quite interesting even if it turned out to be a failure (which I SERIOUSLY doubt.)
OK, it's in bad taste to reply to myself, but there is one other angle to cost. I buy more GameBoy games that any other system, by far. Why? Because GBA games tended to cost $20 (they are now moving up towards $35). Compare that to console games which used to cost $50 (SNES days) and now seem to be trying to hit $75. If I'm going to spend $60 bucks on something, I want to be sure it's good. That's another reason why people actually BUY those clone-sequels. Why risk $60 on something that could (and judgeing by many games out there WOULD) be junk when you can buy something "tried and true." It may not be innovative, but it's probably not trash. As game prices go up, this will only get worse.
I don't mind spending $30 on some interesting little game that I might not like (many indie games on computers are this way), but my console libraries tend to follow the pattern mentioned above (that or I just rent the game and beat it that way). If I have $60 to spend on a new game, that no-name game I've never heard of (thank you, marketing) that looks interesting probably won't get picked up because I feel safer buying something "trustworthy" instead of taking that risk.
Some games (Ribbit King) are priced low ($20 or $25, IIRC) and so I'll give 'em a try and find a little gem (for the money). We need more games like that.
Well, the reason that I've heard before is that it is so expensive and time consuming to make new games. As a consequence of that (and the fact that as consoles get better, you need more and higher quality art to keep the game looking reasonably good). So because of this, studios are less and less likely to try new games and instead focus on sequels (where you have previous fans likely to buy, some art and much design is already complete, there is an engine to use, etc.).
Now this hasn't stopped new games from comming out. In the past few years we have had very innovative games (Full Spectrum Warrior, Sly Cooper, Pikmin, Katamari Damaci, Viewtiful Joe, and many many other). But it SEEMS like we are drowning in sequels (and to a degree we are) because for ever Katamari Damaci or FSW that comes out, we have *insert_sport_here* 200X, Generic Platformer 3: Now More Extreme, and about 6 other sequels.
This is not to say that sequels don't innovate. Some sequels really do innovate on their predicessor and make great games. But most don't. Most are a forumalic continuation (which can be good (not great) to aweful (why didn't they FIX THAT?)).
Frankly, I blame marketing (that's always fun). When every game out there is supposed to be made more "XTreme" and "Urban", is it any wonder that there are very few Katamari Damacis out there? We even see this ruining perfectly good games. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was a fantastic game. Great story, movie like presentation, clean and safe for kids. So they decided to make a sequel. Great! I couldn't wait. Then I saw it. Everything is dark and evil. The girl is now wearing cinnamon dental-floss for clothes. The whole atmosphere of the first game is gone replacced with a dark, extreme game. I won't buy it. I probably won't even rent it to play it. If they hadn't done that, I would have bought it.
Or Tony Hawk. Ever since playing THPS2 I've been hooked. The last one I bought (THUG) was a great game. I loved the story in it, it made it more fun to play for me because it wasn't just "random" stuff as much. At the same time, they didn't ruin the game. It was great. So then the sequel came out. I was going to buy it. But guess what, MARKETING got into the mix. So instead of the same (relativly) clean game, we get somemthing that's full of "hip" and "Urban" stuff. There are tons of low-brow jokes, an psycho kid in a wheelchair, and all sorts of other stuff that makes the game look like it came from "Blue Collar TV". Sorry Activision. No cash for you.
And what do we get when there actually IS a great game? Katamari Damachi I only know about because I read many gaming sites. I don't think I've seen any ads in magazines for it. I certanly haven't seen TV ads or flash ads on gaming sites. I only knew it existed because it was an odd little game that got some press for being origional. It wasn't marketed here in the US. Ico was the same. That was a FANTASTIC game, and real art. But it didn't do that well. A few TV commercials might help. Instead we get TV commercials for GTA:SA and THUG2. These little gems hardly ever seem to get any coverage, except as a single review and maybe a number on a top-10 list at the end of the year. In the mean time, stupid sequel 17 to pure formulaic game type 3 from some "me too" company runs tons of ads. I'll put Shenmue in there too. Some people didn't like it, I thought Shenmue 1 and 2 were the closest to movies or life-stories that games have gotten. Those too were pure art. But they got little press. The third (and final) installment is nowhere to be seen (and probably never will be). I'll give Sega credit for trying to keep things going with Shenmue 2 when 1 didn't sell that well, but they won't even finish out the series.
Hard to start new franchises due to cost, stupid marketing execs (witness: BMX: XXX existing), and underpromotion. That's why we get so many sequels and rip-offs.
Clearly, there is more to this story that you've told us. Are you sure your Mom has told you everything? I think it was hiding from abuse. Here are some theories:
Does your Mom keep spilling the SAME thing in the SAME spot every day and making the Roomba clean it?
Does she empty it's dust bin too much?
Does she let the dust bin overflow and never empty it, making the poor Rooba overweight and feel "fat"?
Does she have a pet that keeps attacking or chasing the poor Roomba?
Does she have a pet that doesn't respect the Roomba's teritory and that it's higher in the pack than the pet?
Does your mom often use the virtual walls to set up mazes for the Roomba to navigate to find the little spot of dirt that needs cleaning at the exit?
Does she use the remote (if she has that model) to make it go forward, and backward, and forward, and backward, and...
Clearly, the poor little thing is being abused, and was forced to run and hide from your mom. You need to go and help it. Only someone truely evil would stand by while a little household appliance would tortured against it's will. Won't someone please think of the Roombas?
That would be my guess. I don't think there have been any chipsets made in the last 5 or 6 years that DIDN'T have at least USB1. If it's on the chipset, it's on the notebook (why bother not to add the ports?). I think there is one in the picture on their site, but it's too low res to tell.
Also, look at what you get. They give you ethernet, FIREWIRE, and no USB? That makes NO sense. You basically HAVE to have USB on a computer to sell it today.
I didn't think of that, but it's a very valid point.
That said, as a Linux lover I'm willing to "take that risk", for two reasons. First, I think it will be much easier to bring Linux UP from being cheap than to just move in at the medium/high end and expect people to buy. If I'm going to spend $1500/$2000 on a new computer, I'm going to be very unlikely to spend it on a PC that has an OS I've never heard of. If I can buy a PC for $500 (that would otherwise cost me $600/$700 with Windows), I'd be more willing to take the risk. Second, more cheap computers are sold than expensive ones. Having 200 "cheap" PCs out there will bring more developers of normal software to Linux that 15 "good" PCs. And when software comes, we can get more users. More users means more software. And on, and on, and on.
Perhaps, but that's OK with me. If even just a few "Joe Six-Packs" buy these things and keep Linux on and notice they don't have virus problems and such like their Windows friends, that's fine with me. Spread the word a little from someone who doesn't have an agenda (real or imagined).
Will some get pirate copies of Windows? Undoubtatly. But I'll take a risk and say that less than half will do that. They may go and BUY a copy of Windows later, but less than half (I feel less than 10% but I'm netting a safty margin) will pirate Windows.
This will appeal to poor Linux geeks too. Add a little RAM and you have a fine little laptop.
Frankly, I think you're too cynical thinking that people will buy this specifically to put Windows on. I think very few will do that. As I said they may do it later (pirate, old copy off a no longer functioning PC, or a legit new copy), but I doubt many will do it off the bat. I also think you're being too cynical saying that Walmart is doing this just so save on the "Windows Tax". I think they are doing it becuase they think they can sell a lot at that magic $500 price point. Maybe they wouldn't sell it if there were $500 Windows laptops, but I don't think it's just to "stick it to MS" as you seem to impy (could be my reading of your comment though.)
This is getting quite OT, but I heard about a school district that did this about a month ago. A teacher wasn't allowed to use the declaration as supplemental material because it contained "god". He did it anyway and was fired (IIRC).
I believe I heard it on Paul Harvey, although it may have been Sean Hannity. I'm not saying it's every school in the country (or even half), but it does happen, and I won't be suprised if it becomes more and more common.
After a few minutes looking over the links, I didn't see a list of what the changes would be for 1.1 or 2.0. So for my education (and to prevent 30 comments with this same question)... can someone point us to that info?
I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the liberals who won't even let teachers SHOW kids the Declaration of Independance and other documents because it references God.
How do you expect a kid to learn about history if you censor it so they can't even SEE WHAT THEY ARE LEARNING ABOUT because some little group that accounts for 0.0002% of the population is "unconfortable" with it?
This was in the System 6 and System 7 days. I don't know if the click and hold thing even existed back then. Now I will give you that a right click is faster than click-and-hold-and-wait-for-menu, but I never HAD to use the context menu. I didn't know they existed untill I got to Windows 95. If the Mac had 'em back then, they were NEVER needed (at least for everyday stuff that I did). I agree that right clicking was faster, but what I meant was that not having that second mouse button didn't slow things down to a degree that using the computer was difficult or a chore. You just never needed to use it.
When I was a kid I used Macs exclusivly for years, and having a single button mouse never hurt me or slowed me down.
When I switched to Windows (in the 3.1 days), I had a two buttom mouse, and it wasn't bad. I seem to remember that the second button didn't really DO anything untill Windows 95 came out, but that could be wrong.
But let's talk about normal people. Let's talk about my parrents. With me in the house, we have had computers the whole time. And they use them. They like them. They surf the 'net, look at Ebay, and use e-mail and such. But what do they think of the right mouse button? I use it all the time, I find it a great time saver. They avoid it. They have no idea what it does (despite occasional attempts to teach them). In fact, they avoid the scroll wheel (an even BETTER time saver) too. They don't scroll with it. They don't click it. It's confusing. When they first had to use a two button mouse, weird things happened when they used the right mouse button, it didn't do what they expected (click, open program, etc). So they learned an easy lesson: NEVER CLICK IT. Ever. They don't touch that scroll wheel either for much the same reason (they never tried, they had already learned not to touch the other buttons). They have next to no idea what it's for. It's just there.
My parrents are quite smart (my mom has a PhD and my father has many degrees and has been a CIO). But what about other people I know? As a computer-literate kid (and nerd), I'm the person everyone comes to for help with their computers (installing things, fixing things, teaching them things). They range from people terrified by computers who have to think for 5 minutes before they do anything incase they do something wrong, to people who have a very good idea what they are doing and only need me when things go REALLY wrong. And in all the years I've been doing this in all the places I've lived, almost NO ONE uses the right mouse button. Just one or two. 99% of them have learned to just avoid it.
As much as we nerds like to complain, Apple knows what it's doing. If you feel limited by having only one button, you can buy a multibutton mouse and it works INSTANTLY. If not, you can use the one button. They have the right idea, trust me.
Now my only complaint is with Apple laptops, where you would have to carry a mouse to use the right button (I know about the command-click, that's not the point; and there is software that will let you tap a corner to work like a right click). What I would really like would be for there to be two contact switches under the button on Apple's laptop. It would work just like it does now. It's one solid button, and it works like one button. BUT if you know what you are doing, there is a "secret" option in the OS that interprets things differently. Click the left half of the button, you get a left click. Click the right half of the button, you get a right click. And if you accidently click both at once, that's a left click (just to make things easier). That would give the laptop's a second button, but you'd have to enable it and know what you were doing, so Aunt Tillie wouldn't have to deal with two buttons. I would LOVE this.
But that's a minor complaint. It'll never stop me from buying an Apple laptop.
I believe that this refers to the ability to "stack" the cores together, that is create multicore chips. Sure there are supposed to be multicore P4s and Pentium Ms, but they are "hacked" together, not optomized for it. AMD's Opteron, on the other hand, has been designed for it from the start.
That's my guess. Literally stacking cores not only would have terrible heat problems, but how do you deal with all those pins? 478 per core (the Pentium V will probably use even more than that) is 956 pins. But you would have to have a socket for those dual core chips, and another seperate socket for the single core chips. Complicated. Either that or you'd have to use 956 pin sockets for ALL chips and just not use half the pins. Again, complicated.
Natural dual/triple/quad/whatever core is my guess. Not hacked, but designed for it specifically.
Would someone like to explain to me why the systems (assumingly CRITICAL systems) at a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT are connected to the Internet (and therefor exposed for Slammer) at all? I would think that you would want such stuff to be isolated so that nothing like that could happen. I mean, if you MUST get some data out to the outside world, connect two computers by serial cable. One is connected to the 'net and can only recieve data, the other is connected to the internal network and can only send data. That way NOTHING can get into the system.
That would be common sense, wouldn't it? I'm not trained in network security, but why would controll systems need to be connected to the 'net?
PS: I'm ignoring the obvious "Why are you running Windows and not some ultra-hard OpenBSD or RTOS or something".
One other thing I forgot. With FBDIMMs it would be easy to replace your DRAM with SRAM (if prices dropped enough) because the refresh circuitry is on DIMM. That means one less thing that the memory controller has to do, which means less complexity and less silicon (not that the refresh logic takes up a huge ammount, but every little bit). When magnetic RAM comes along, you wouldn't need yet another memory controller.
And (since I think it's serial, instead of parallel like current RAM) it would SERIOUSLY decrease the pincounts of the Opteron and northbridges. Think if you could have quad channel memory in your desktop as an option. Right now the CPU would need THOUSANDS of pins to do that. But you might be able to do it with the current 939 pins on an Opteron if you used FBDIMMs.
Slashdot Mirror
I came from a Windows laptop that you could scroll using the touchpad. You'd either have your finger on the right edge of the pad (for verticle) or on the bottom edge (for horizontal). That was a VERY nifty feature that I loved and used all the time.
So then I got the Mac. Before Apple announced that feature I was planning to use SideTrack so I could get the scrolling, but when Apple announced it I decided to give their way a try. Here is my review: IT ROCKS!
It is SO easy to do and works flawlessly. You don't need to know where your finger is on the pad. It doesn't matter how far apart the two fingers are, it works great. I've found myself using my index and ring fingers for it (just seems comfortable). It scrolls so easily and naturally it took absolutly no time to get used it. It's a fantastic feature.
My only complaint: on my Windows laptop I could drag to scroll and then lift my finger and it would keep scrolling. I would like that functionality too, but it's no big deal.
So in short, if you've got an Apple laptop I suggest you try this if it does work (I haven't tested it, but I have no doubts as this is a hardware feature not a software feature, I think), I bet you'll love it.
As for the Alpine unit, that's true. But to get that you have to have a $600+ Alpine head unit or so, don't you? Then you add the $100 interface and the $200 iPod and you're up near $1000. If Apple could do it for $500 that would be great. And just having it all in one package from start (instead of having to get all that stuff and assemble it yourself) could be great. But I don't expect them to make such a thing anyways.
As for the signal inside a brick building, I agree that he must have been by a terrestrial repeater (that or he was on the top floor so there wasn't much in the way of the signal).
The antenna for a car XM unit is about 1" square, but that is because it sticks to a large metal car body that acts as a ground plane. The home antennas for XM units are squares that are 2" to 3" per side. They get pretty good signals too.
I never understood how they could put a decent antenna inside that little unit. Sounds like I was right. The problem would only be worse if the unit was smaller (like an iPod). It's easy to pick up that 100,000 watt FM station that's 20 miles away with a little tiny antenna. But picking up a satellite whose signal is broadcast across the whole US with a tiny antenna (and the signal is probably not 100,000 watts at the source either)... it can't be easy.
Now if you were in a metro area where XM has singal repeaters on the ground, things might be better. Are you in such an area? There is usually a symbol next to the signal strength meter if you are getting the signal from a relay station.
I'm with another poster. This would work better as a "CarPod". A combination iPod/Satellite/AM/FM/CD/Radio unit for your car, not some little portable (I would buy one in a heartbeat.)
That said, I think they would definatly have to increase the size of the iPod (maybe double as thick what the lowest capacity iPod is) to make it work. It wouldn't be a tiny addition (like an FM radio might be). See my other post in this topic for my other thoughts.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but I think it is definatly too early. It will be a while before we see such a thing. I don't see how it could happen right now. Just doesn't seem to make sense.
That said, why not just strip the comments and release it that way untill the comments can be cleaned, or better yet run it through a program to filter out offensive language.
I mean, it's not like the variables have naughty names, right?
Now I realize that Microsoft makes free development tools available on the internet (in the form of CLI compilers), but why doesn't Microsoft (at least as an option) provide a development environment as an option during install (the above mentioned programs would suffice), or try to make the avaialibility of those tools more well known?
I must say that because much of my early programming was done under Linux, I've gotten quite used to and familiar with the various GNU tools and prefer to use them. I can't help but wonder if those kind of things were available on Windows when I started programming (without having to buy seperate packages like CodeWarrior, Visual Studio, and others) that I may prefer that environment.
If you are interested in programming, it simply seems easier to start on Linux or OS X because the tools are already there and that fact is well publicized. Does Microsoft have any plan to try to remedy this situation?
But why KDE the desktop environment? I don't see how there is much of a call for that at all.
The article says that they are getting ready to release an updated version of Qt for Windows for GPLed software to use. So far this is much like article posted a few days ago.
But the article here talks about this being important so that people can run KDE (the desktop environment) on Windows without having to rurn Cygwin. Now while I understand not wanting to use Cygwin (it works, but it feels like a hack because in a way it is). That said, here is my main question:
Why would you want to run KDE on Windows. I understand the "because you can" theory (which is cool), but does anyone actually want to do this full time? Why? Why not run Linux or BSD? I understand wanting to be able to run GPLed software that uses QT (JuK as one example, or other such software, maybe even Konq), but why KDE?
Can someone explain?
The second is that it's STARTING at 4ghz. It's one thing to say a chip can scale and run at some speed (again, I'm looking at you Intel), but to debut it running faster than the fastest mass produced CPU in the world is something all together different.
Cell should be quite formidable, and I think it will be quite interesting to see what comes of it. I've held the opinion for a few years that computers would move to having a couple of CPUs each running their own task (like in Cell), with one main (quite possibly slower) CPU controlling them all and running the OS (traffic cop, again like in the Cell). While the individual processing units are not general purpose (they are more vector oriented), it should still be interesting to see what comes of this. After all, most things people use high-end CPUs for are (or can be) vector ops, right? Compression, 3D, etc. Wordprocessing and spreadsheets don't tend to need much power. A large generalization, I know, but still... the introduction of the Cell (especiall the way it should be able to "group" its self with other Cell processors in your house) should prove quite interesting even if it turned out to be a failure (which I SERIOUSLY doubt.)
I don't mind spending $30 on some interesting little game that I might not like (many indie games on computers are this way), but my console libraries tend to follow the pattern mentioned above (that or I just rent the game and beat it that way). If I have $60 to spend on a new game, that no-name game I've never heard of (thank you, marketing) that looks interesting probably won't get picked up because I feel safer buying something "trustworthy" instead of taking that risk.
Some games (Ribbit King) are priced low ($20 or $25, IIRC) and so I'll give 'em a try and find a little gem (for the money). We need more games like that.
Now this hasn't stopped new games from comming out. In the past few years we have had very innovative games (Full Spectrum Warrior, Sly Cooper, Pikmin, Katamari Damaci, Viewtiful Joe, and many many other). But it SEEMS like we are drowning in sequels (and to a degree we are) because for ever Katamari Damaci or FSW that comes out, we have *insert_sport_here* 200X, Generic Platformer 3: Now More Extreme, and about 6 other sequels.
This is not to say that sequels don't innovate. Some sequels really do innovate on their predicessor and make great games. But most don't. Most are a forumalic continuation (which can be good (not great) to aweful (why didn't they FIX THAT?)).
Frankly, I blame marketing (that's always fun). When every game out there is supposed to be made more "XTreme" and "Urban", is it any wonder that there are very few Katamari Damacis out there? We even see this ruining perfectly good games. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was a fantastic game. Great story, movie like presentation, clean and safe for kids. So they decided to make a sequel. Great! I couldn't wait. Then I saw it. Everything is dark and evil. The girl is now wearing cinnamon dental-floss for clothes. The whole atmosphere of the first game is gone replacced with a dark, extreme game. I won't buy it. I probably won't even rent it to play it. If they hadn't done that, I would have bought it.
Or Tony Hawk. Ever since playing THPS2 I've been hooked. The last one I bought (THUG) was a great game. I loved the story in it, it made it more fun to play for me because it wasn't just "random" stuff as much. At the same time, they didn't ruin the game. It was great. So then the sequel came out. I was going to buy it. But guess what, MARKETING got into the mix. So instead of the same (relativly) clean game, we get somemthing that's full of "hip" and "Urban" stuff. There are tons of low-brow jokes, an psycho kid in a wheelchair, and all sorts of other stuff that makes the game look like it came from "Blue Collar TV". Sorry Activision. No cash for you.
And what do we get when there actually IS a great game? Katamari Damachi I only know about because I read many gaming sites. I don't think I've seen any ads in magazines for it. I certanly haven't seen TV ads or flash ads on gaming sites. I only knew it existed because it was an odd little game that got some press for being origional. It wasn't marketed here in the US. Ico was the same. That was a FANTASTIC game, and real art. But it didn't do that well. A few TV commercials might help. Instead we get TV commercials for GTA:SA and THUG2. These little gems hardly ever seem to get any coverage, except as a single review and maybe a number on a top-10 list at the end of the year. In the mean time, stupid sequel 17 to pure formulaic game type 3 from some "me too" company runs tons of ads. I'll put Shenmue in there too. Some people didn't like it, I thought Shenmue 1 and 2 were the closest to movies or life-stories that games have gotten. Those too were pure art. But they got little press. The third (and final) installment is nowhere to be seen (and probably never will be). I'll give Sega credit for trying to keep things going with Shenmue 2 when 1 didn't sell that well, but they won't even finish out the series.
Hard to start new franchises due to cost, stupid marketing execs (witness: BMX: XXX existing), and underpromotion. That's why we get so many sequels and rip-offs.
My 0.02, not spent on crappy games.
Clearly, there is more to this story that you've told us. Are you sure your Mom has told you everything? I think it was hiding from abuse. Here are some theories:
Clearly, the poor little thing is being abused, and was forced to run and hide from your mom. You need to go and help it. Only someone truely evil would stand by while a little household appliance would tortured against it's will. Won't someone please think of the Roombas?
Also, look at what you get. They give you ethernet, FIREWIRE, and no USB? That makes NO sense. You basically HAVE to have USB on a computer to sell it today.
That said, as a Linux lover I'm willing to "take that risk", for two reasons. First, I think it will be much easier to bring Linux UP from being cheap than to just move in at the medium/high end and expect people to buy. If I'm going to spend $1500/$2000 on a new computer, I'm going to be very unlikely to spend it on a PC that has an OS I've never heard of. If I can buy a PC for $500 (that would otherwise cost me $600/$700 with Windows), I'd be more willing to take the risk. Second, more cheap computers are sold than expensive ones. Having 200 "cheap" PCs out there will bring more developers of normal software to Linux that 15 "good" PCs. And when software comes, we can get more users. More users means more software. And on, and on, and on.
Some exposure is almost ALWAYS better than none.
Will some get pirate copies of Windows? Undoubtatly. But I'll take a risk and say that less than half will do that. They may go and BUY a copy of Windows later, but less than half (I feel less than 10% but I'm netting a safty margin) will pirate Windows.
This will appeal to poor Linux geeks too. Add a little RAM and you have a fine little laptop.
Frankly, I think you're too cynical thinking that people will buy this specifically to put Windows on. I think very few will do that. As I said they may do it later (pirate, old copy off a no longer functioning PC, or a legit new copy), but I doubt many will do it off the bat. I also think you're being too cynical saying that Walmart is doing this just so save on the "Windows Tax". I think they are doing it becuase they think they can sell a lot at that magic $500 price point. Maybe they wouldn't sell it if there were $500 Windows laptops, but I don't think it's just to "stick it to MS" as you seem to impy (could be my reading of your comment though.)
I believe I heard it on Paul Harvey, although it may have been Sean Hannity. I'm not saying it's every school in the country (or even half), but it does happen, and I won't be suprised if it becomes more and more common.
Thanks.
I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the liberals who won't even let teachers SHOW kids the Declaration of Independance and other documents because it references God.
How do you expect a kid to learn about history if you censor it so they can't even SEE WHAT THEY ARE LEARNING ABOUT because some little group that accounts for 0.0002% of the population is "unconfortable" with it?
This was in the System 6 and System 7 days. I don't know if the click and hold thing even existed back then. Now I will give you that a right click is faster than click-and-hold-and-wait-for-menu, but I never HAD to use the context menu. I didn't know they existed untill I got to Windows 95. If the Mac had 'em back then, they were NEVER needed (at least for everyday stuff that I did). I agree that right clicking was faster, but what I meant was that not having that second mouse button didn't slow things down to a degree that using the computer was difficult or a chore. You just never needed to use it.
When I switched to Windows (in the 3.1 days), I had a two buttom mouse, and it wasn't bad. I seem to remember that the second button didn't really DO anything untill Windows 95 came out, but that could be wrong.
But let's talk about normal people. Let's talk about my parrents. With me in the house, we have had computers the whole time. And they use them. They like them. They surf the 'net, look at Ebay, and use e-mail and such. But what do they think of the right mouse button? I use it all the time, I find it a great time saver. They avoid it. They have no idea what it does (despite occasional attempts to teach them). In fact, they avoid the scroll wheel (an even BETTER time saver) too. They don't scroll with it. They don't click it. It's confusing. When they first had to use a two button mouse, weird things happened when they used the right mouse button, it didn't do what they expected (click, open program, etc). So they learned an easy lesson: NEVER CLICK IT. Ever. They don't touch that scroll wheel either for much the same reason (they never tried, they had already learned not to touch the other buttons). They have next to no idea what it's for. It's just there.
My parrents are quite smart (my mom has a PhD and my father has many degrees and has been a CIO). But what about other people I know? As a computer-literate kid (and nerd), I'm the person everyone comes to for help with their computers (installing things, fixing things, teaching them things). They range from people terrified by computers who have to think for 5 minutes before they do anything incase they do something wrong, to people who have a very good idea what they are doing and only need me when things go REALLY wrong. And in all the years I've been doing this in all the places I've lived, almost NO ONE uses the right mouse button. Just one or two. 99% of them have learned to just avoid it.
As much as we nerds like to complain, Apple knows what it's doing. If you feel limited by having only one button, you can buy a multibutton mouse and it works INSTANTLY. If not, you can use the one button. They have the right idea, trust me.
Now my only complaint is with Apple laptops, where you would have to carry a mouse to use the right button (I know about the command-click, that's not the point; and there is software that will let you tap a corner to work like a right click). What I would really like would be for there to be two contact switches under the button on Apple's laptop. It would work just like it does now. It's one solid button, and it works like one button. BUT if you know what you are doing, there is a "secret" option in the OS that interprets things differently. Click the left half of the button, you get a left click. Click the right half of the button, you get a right click. And if you accidently click both at once, that's a left click (just to make things easier). That would give the laptop's a second button, but you'd have to enable it and know what you were doing, so Aunt Tillie wouldn't have to deal with two buttons. I would LOVE this.
But that's a minor complaint. It'll never stop me from buying an Apple laptop.
Apple has it right!
That's my guess. Literally stacking cores not only would have terrible heat problems, but how do you deal with all those pins? 478 per core (the Pentium V will probably use even more than that) is 956 pins. But you would have to have a socket for those dual core chips, and another seperate socket for the single core chips. Complicated. Either that or you'd have to use 956 pin sockets for ALL chips and just not use half the pins. Again, complicated.
Natural dual/triple/quad/whatever core is my guess. Not hacked, but designed for it specifically.
That would be common sense, wouldn't it? I'm not trained in network security, but why would controll systems need to be connected to the 'net?
PS: I'm ignoring the obvious "Why are you running Windows and not some ultra-hard OpenBSD or RTOS or something".
And (since I think it's serial, instead of parallel like current RAM) it would SERIOUSLY decrease the pincounts of the Opteron and northbridges. Think if you could have quad channel memory in your desktop as an option. Right now the CPU would need THOUSANDS of pins to do that. But you might be able to do it with the current 939 pins on an Opteron if you used FBDIMMs.
Ah, dreams.