>>>The article is correct, the multitasking for DOS sessions was preemptive.
According to microsoft.com 16 bit applications, which includes DOS, only run cooperatively..... meaning that the OS can not "preempt" them and hand control to some other program. The OS has to sit and wait to be released by whichever app is currently in charge to release control voluntarily (cooperatively),
It does, but when you walk into a computer lab they don't hand you a manual. It's just a screen with Windows on it, and I didn't know anything about ALT-TAB, and even if I did, the MacOS and Amiga approaches were simply better (i.e. user-friendly). For example Amiga has ALT-M and ALT-N to flip through screens -or- you could use the mouse button to do it with a dropdown menu.
Yet another way Amigas/Macs were a decade ahead of Microsoft - why nobody at MS thought to create a menu to change applications is a mystery.
>>>You're completely wrong. Win9x had proper preemptive multitasking.
No you're both wrong. Win95 does do preemptive multitasking on newer 32 bit applications, but the common 16 bit applications of 1995 only ran cooperatively (and therefore a single crashed app could freeze the OS). Ditto NT 3.1 (but less crashprone). It wasn't until Win98 that Microsoft fixed that flaw and made everything preemptive, regardless of bitness.
So prior to 1998, the only home computer that did "true" preemptive tasking was the Commodore Amiga (1985).
(shrug). My laptop came with 8 megabytes. I was merely commenting on my OWN experience. I don't know how it would work on 4 MB, but given how it works on 8 (slow), I bet it would be a real dog... like trying to run WinXP on less than 128 MB.
>>>With Windows 3.0, you could use a full 32-bit address space on a 386
Again: This was no big deal to Apple Macintosh, Atari ST, or Commodore Amiga owners who were already running 32-bit software as early as 1984. In 1987 the 68020 variants could address 4000 megabytes (real or virtual RAM). So basically Windows 3.0 was just playing catch-up with what its competition had done half-a-decade earlier. .
>>>Wikipedia claims that most Windows 3.0 programs required a 286
>>>>>VP8 is aimed *specifically* at this kind of resolution. It's why it's great for YouTube... >> >>Youtube and the like are all moving towards HD.
And cutting-off people with basic services like 1 Mbit/s cable internet, DSL, or slow 56k dialup. Forcing people to faster speeds that they either don't have, or don't want, is irresponsible of the website owner. Youtube and others should always provide the OPTION for a low VHS-quality image for people who don't feel the need to watch Lady Gaga slut-it-up in any resolution higher than 320x480. Codecs like Vorbis and MPEG4 AVC give the website that option.
>>>the biggest problem YouTube has is the crappy resolution and blocky compression. Ditching that shit quickly would be the best thing for YouTube.
But bad for me, because I'd no longer be able to squeeze the videos through my 750 kbit/s line. As it is the VEVO videos are already too fat to stream in real time, and I wish youtube would provide me with a lower resolution option. I don't care about quality just to watch a Britney Spears video, and if I did I'd buy the DVD or Bluray release.
The article reads: In higher motion videos, though, H.264 seems superior..... In this very high motion skateboard video, H.264 also looks clearer.....
Well then that's it then. Any codec, even the ancient MPEG2, can look good on static or slow-moving subjects. It's when there's lots of motion that MPEG2 breaks down (see Water Polo during NBC Olympic broadcast), and apparently the same is true for VP8. The newer, latest MPEG4 AVC/h.264 codec is better.
AUDIO: The author didn't discuss this, but his encoding used Vorbis versus AAC. Vorbis will beat AAC, but numerous listening tests have shown it will not beat AAC+SBR (HE-AAC) which can produce FM quality sound as low as 28 kbit/s, and AM quality at only 12 kbit/s:
You just to shorten it to its original length - 14 years. That would protect authors' right to recoup their labor via sales, while also serving the public need for fresh ideas. Just imagine if Windows 95 was public domain..... a decent working OS that runs on a mere 16 megabytes/12 megahertz, and is free to use for everyone. Then maybe the One Child One Laptop for ~$10 could become a reality rather than just a pipe dream.
Copyright has a purpose, to protect authors' from starvation, but non-ending copyright has also stifled our culture.
Flamebait? He stated the truth. But he also left out this part: The US is so vehement to protects its music, movies, and so forth because, like Rome at the end of its life, the country has nothing left to offer the world except entertainment. The US wants to protect that cashflow, else it would go bankrupt.
I think whoever accused Canada as 3rd worst is a real asshole. Canada DOES have relevant laws about piracy - they collect approximately 1% per blank cassette, CD, or DVD sold, put that money in a central fund, and use that fund to provide financial backing for artists. That's Canadian law. That's the solution they chose and exercised for the last ~30 years.
Now maybe the Congresscritters don't like that law, but last I checked Canada is not a US protectorate. (Unless they are secretly planning to turn the provinces into states 51 to 60). I think it's about time the European Union, the British Commonwealth, and BRIC step-up and tell Washington DC to "Shut up!"
As for the Chinese dude, he's obviously lying but at the same time I think he's taking the right approach - "We're not your serfs. You will not boss us around."
About a month ago my employer gave me an old laptop with Windows 3.1 --- trust me, you're not missing anything. Although I'm impressed that the OS and software fit inside just 0.008 gigabytes of RAM, I'm not impressed when I compare it to the other OSes of the day like MacOS 7, Amiga OS, or Atari ST-OS, all of which were superior. Even GEOS on the lowly C64 was better (imho).
Windows95 and NT 4 were Microsoft's first truly good OSes.... prior to that MS is best avoided.
Is this a mistake? "This was a cooperative or 'non-preemptive' multitasking"..... "Windows 3.0 could run multiple DOS sessions preemptively". I think you meant cooperatively in the last sentence?
When people ask me the difference, I tell them that in cooperative multitasking, if your Email Program crashes, it takes down the whole system because it never releases control of the CPU. That happened a lot on my old Quadra Mac, making it freeze. In contract in preemptive multitasking, like an Amiga, the OS forces programs to give-up control so even if one of them crashes, it won't freeze the other programs.
That's odd. My teenage angst was fueled by 4000 color nudie pics downloaded on my Amiga. (My IBM PC friends were still stuck with only 256 or 16 colors... not lifelike at all.) I never got off on windows.
I think everyone should give those Windows 3.x emulators a try. They are great demonstrations for why many of us chose to buy Atari STs, Commodore Amigas, or Apple Macintoshes instead.
I hated using Windows 3.x.
Multitasking was an exercise in masochism (and also sadism when you pounded your keyboard). On Mac it was as easy as clicking Apple in the top corner, which would produce a dropdown of all running programs. On Amiga it was even easier. The Amiga-M and Amiga-N keys rapidly flipped through the running programs. I typically ran JRterm, a file manager, WordPerfect, C compiler, and the Workbench all at once.
Windows 3.x multitasking was like stepping 10 years back in time. It felt as if I was using a slow C64 again. I avoided using that OS as much as possible. Not until Windows 95 did they finally get a decent interface, which was basically just a clone of the Mac desktop (trashcan, shutdown procedure, finder, et cetera).
>>>I did go back and recommend to my employer at the time that they should start looking into Windows
Traitor.;-) You should have recommended the Amiga. If you and other had done that, maybe Amiga would not have disappeared three years later due to lack of sales. ------ And yeah I was similarly unimpressed with Windows 3.0. It was a crappy, shitty OS. To quote someone else: "Using 3.0 and 3.1 largely consisted of opening random program groups, trying to find where your programs were hidden."
Also it was extremely difficult to multitask. If you were running both Word and Excel for example, you had to first minimize the Word window, then locate the icon representing Excel, followed by clicking it. Then if you wanted to switch back, minimize Excel, find the Word icon, and click it. Royal pain in the ass.
- On Mac it was as easy as clicking Apple, which would produce a dropdown of all running programs. - On Amiga it was even easier. The Amiga-M and Amiga-N keys rapidly flipped through the running programs.
I hated using Windows 3.x. It felt like I was stepping 10 years back in time. It felt like I was using a slow non-multitasking Commodore=64 again. Not until Windows 95 did they finally get a decent interface (still used today). Of course the reason Win95 was so easy is because it was just a clone of the Mac desktop (trashcan, shutdown procedure, finder, et cetera).
>>>But "dumping" the code (i.e. reverse engineering a 2600 game from just the ROM)
Why on earth would the two Activision programmers need to do that? They could just walk down the hall to David Crane's office and say, "Hey the boss wants us to port Pitfall 2 to the Atari and Commodore computers. Can we have your 2600 source and notes? Thanks." Simple.
As for the C64:
It doesn't play "right". I first played the original game on the Atari console, and later the C64 game. The character doesn't act the same. But on the Atari computer version, it feels identical to the original console version.
- If the court discovers Opentorrent's owner is the same as Piratebay's owner, they will argue that each individual site may be technically legal, but the OWNER is using them together to commit a crime.
Just as it not illegal to own fertilizer. And it's not illegal to own a detonator. But if you put the two together under the same owner, then you have a potential criminal and he needs to be examined.
Well here's a story from the stone knives and bear claws-era (early 80s):
Two programmers were tasked to convert the Atart VCS/2600 game Pitfall 2 to a Commodore=64 and Atari 800 computer. One said, "The Atari console is so primitive that it's easier to recreate the whole game from scratch," and the other said, "No just copy the 6502 code and then modify it for the varying graphics/sound chips." They then went their separate ways.
- The Commodore=64 programmer recreated the whole game from scratch, and produced a slightly-flawed but decent port.
- The Atari 800 programmer simply dumped the code directly, and then modified it. He produced a port that played identical to the original PLUS he had enough time left-over that he added a whole other game (basically Pitfall 3). So Atari 800 purchasers got two games for the price of one.
Reworking is faster than starting over. Even if the design is a complete mess, there's typically SOME modules that can be reused, and that's time saved
10 antenna-received stations == about 25 channels because of the -2 and -3 subchannels. That's not as many channels as basic cable offers (~50) but then it also doesn't come with a ~$65/month bill.
Well I've looked at the Tesla Roadsters specs, and they are very similar to the EV1. ACEEE.org ranked the EV1 as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic Hybrid and I suspect the same would be true for the Roadster. .
>>>most people stop in 5 or less hours (within the vehicle's range) for 45 minutes to an hour.
I never stop. 5 minutes to recharge the gasoline and that's it..... there's no possible way to recharge an EV in 5 minutes. As for the rest of your comments you are clearly a fan of EVs, and that's fine, but I am also an electrical engineer who has been studying alternative cars for a decade. The EV doesn't live up to the hype. That's why I bought the Insight Hybrid and not the Rav4 EV several years ago. (Insight was ranked as the cleanest car by ACEEE.)
I think Hybrids are the only practical solution for Americans, who like to drive long distances, and don't want to be limited by an empty battery that takes an hour to recharge. The hybrids offer the best of both EV (efficient) and gasoline/diesel cars (5 minute recharge). .
>>>there are new technologies (either now going into mass production, or soon to go into mass production) that provide either (a) cheaper batteries with longer life (the silicon based ones) or (b) batteries with greater storage capacities in the same size >>>
No offense but I heard the same thing in 2000. And yet here we are, still using the same NiMH technology in cars.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>The article is correct, the multitasking for DOS sessions was preemptive.
According to microsoft.com 16 bit applications, which includes DOS, only run cooperatively..... meaning that the OS can not "preempt" them and hand control to some other program. The OS has to sit and wait to be released by whichever app is currently in charge to release control voluntarily (cooperatively),
It does, but when you walk into a computer lab they don't hand you a manual. It's just a screen with Windows on it, and I didn't know anything about ALT-TAB, and even if I did, the MacOS and Amiga approaches were simply better (i.e. user-friendly). For example Amiga has ALT-M and ALT-N to flip through screens -or- you could use the mouse button to do it with a dropdown menu.
Yet another way Amigas/Macs were a decade ahead of Microsoft - why nobody at MS thought to create a menu to change applications is a mystery.
>>>You're completely wrong. Win9x had proper preemptive multitasking.
No you're both wrong. Win95 does do preemptive multitasking on newer 32 bit applications, but the common 16 bit applications of 1995 only ran cooperatively (and therefore a single crashed app could freeze the OS). Ditto NT 3.1 (but less crashprone). It wasn't until Win98 that Microsoft fixed that flaw and made everything preemptive, regardless of bitness.
So prior to 1998, the only home computer that did "true" preemptive tasking was the Commodore Amiga (1985).
(shrug). My laptop came with 8 megabytes. I was merely commenting on my OWN experience. I don't know how it would work on 4 MB, but given how it works on 8 (slow), I bet it would be a real dog... like trying to run WinXP on less than 128 MB.
>>>With Windows 3.0, you could use a full 32-bit address space on a 386
Again: This was no big deal to Apple Macintosh, Atari ST, or Commodore Amiga owners who were already running 32-bit software as early as 1984. In 1987 the 68020 variants could address 4000 megabytes (real or virtual RAM). So basically Windows 3.0 was just playing catch-up with what its competition had done half-a-decade earlier.
.
>>>Wikipedia claims that most Windows 3.0 programs required a 286
You ought to edit and correct it.
>>>>>VP8 is aimed *specifically* at this kind of resolution. It's why it's great for YouTube...
>>
>>Youtube and the like are all moving towards HD.
And cutting-off people with basic services like 1 Mbit/s cable internet, DSL, or slow 56k dialup. Forcing people to faster speeds that they either don't have, or don't want, is irresponsible of the website owner. Youtube and others should always provide the OPTION for a low VHS-quality image for people who don't feel the need to watch Lady Gaga slut-it-up in any resolution higher than 320x480. Codecs like Vorbis and MPEG4 AVC give the website that option.
>>>the biggest problem YouTube has is the crappy resolution and blocky compression. Ditching that shit quickly would be the best thing for YouTube.
But bad for me, because I'd no longer be able to squeeze the videos through my 750 kbit/s line. As it is the VEVO videos are already too fat to stream in real time, and I wish youtube would provide me with a lower resolution option. I don't care about quality just to watch a Britney Spears video, and if I did I'd buy the DVD or Bluray release.
The article reads:
In higher motion videos, though, H.264 seems superior..... In this very high motion skateboard video, H.264 also looks clearer.....
Well then that's it then. Any codec, even the ancient MPEG2, can look good on static or slow-moving subjects. It's when there's lots of motion that MPEG2 breaks down (see Water Polo during NBC Olympic broadcast), and apparently the same is true for VP8. The newer, latest MPEG4 AVC/h.264 codec is better.
AUDIO: The author didn't discuss this, but his encoding used Vorbis versus AAC. Vorbis will beat AAC, but numerous listening tests have shown it will not beat AAC+SBR (HE-AAC) which can produce FM quality sound as low as 28 kbit/s, and AM quality at only 12 kbit/s:
FM - http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=322507
AM - http://www.radiojackie.com:11209/listen.pls
You don't need to get rid of copyright law.
You just to shorten it to its original length - 14 years. That would protect authors' right to recoup their labor via sales, while also serving the public need for fresh ideas. Just imagine if Windows 95 was public domain..... a decent working OS that runs on a mere 16 megabytes/12 megahertz, and is free to use for everyone. Then maybe the One Child One Laptop for ~$10 could become a reality rather than just a pipe dream.
Copyright has a purpose, to protect authors' from starvation, but non-ending copyright has also stifled our culture.
Flamebait? He stated the truth. But he also left out this part: The US is so vehement to protects its music, movies, and so forth because, like Rome at the end of its life, the country has nothing left to offer the world except entertainment. The US wants to protect that cashflow, else it would go bankrupt.
Ya know.....
I think whoever accused Canada as 3rd worst is a real asshole. Canada DOES have relevant laws about piracy - they collect approximately 1% per blank cassette, CD, or DVD sold, put that money in a central fund, and use that fund to provide financial backing for artists. That's Canadian law. That's the solution they chose and exercised for the last ~30 years.
Now maybe the Congresscritters don't like that law, but last I checked Canada is not a US protectorate. (Unless they are secretly planning to turn the provinces into states 51 to 60). I think it's about time the European Union, the British Commonwealth, and BRIC step-up and tell Washington DC to "Shut up!"
As for the Chinese dude, he's obviously lying but at the same time I think he's taking the right approach - "We're not your serfs. You will not boss us around."
>>>who swears that this kind of fish, cooked in this particular way doesn't taste fishy
You ought to try tilapia, straight up without flavoring. It's about as bland as eating chicken, and is the only fish I enjoy.
>>>Yeah, too bad neither the Amiga nor the Lisa were ever relevant outside the US
Completely and totally wrong. I can't speak to Macs, but Amigas were HUGE in Europe, and even today most of the Amiga community resides in the EU.
About a month ago my employer gave me an old laptop with Windows 3.1 --- trust me, you're not missing anything. Although I'm impressed that the OS and software fit inside just 0.008 gigabytes of RAM, I'm not impressed when I compare it to the other OSes of the day like MacOS 7, Amiga OS, or Atari ST-OS, all of which were superior. Even GEOS on the lowly C64 was better (imho).
Windows95 and NT 4 were Microsoft's first truly good OSes.... prior to that MS is best avoided.
Is this a mistake? "This was a cooperative or 'non-preemptive' multitasking"..... "Windows 3.0 could run multiple DOS sessions preemptively". I think you meant cooperatively in the last sentence?
When people ask me the difference, I tell them that in cooperative multitasking, if your Email Program crashes, it takes down the whole system because it never releases control of the CPU. That happened a lot on my old Quadra Mac, making it freeze. In contract in preemptive multitasking, like an Amiga, the OS forces programs to give-up control so even if one of them crashes, it won't freeze the other programs.
Of course that's a simplified explanation.
That's odd. My teenage angst was fueled by 4000 color nudie pics downloaded on my Amiga. (My IBM PC friends were still stuck with only 256 or 16 colors... not lifelike at all.) I never got off on windows.
I think everyone should give those Windows 3.x emulators a try. They are great demonstrations for why many of us chose to buy Atari STs, Commodore Amigas, or Apple Macintoshes instead.
I hated using Windows 3.x.
Multitasking was an exercise in masochism (and also sadism when you pounded your keyboard). On Mac it was as easy as clicking Apple in the top corner, which would produce a dropdown of all running programs. On Amiga it was even easier. The Amiga-M and Amiga-N keys rapidly flipped through the running programs. I typically ran JRterm, a file manager, WordPerfect, C compiler, and the Workbench all at once.
Windows 3.x multitasking was like stepping 10 years back in time. It felt as if I was using a slow C64 again. I avoided using that OS as much as possible. Not until Windows 95 did they finally get a decent interface, which was basically just a clone of the Mac desktop (trashcan, shutdown procedure, finder, et cetera).
>>>I did go back and recommend to my employer at the time that they should start looking into Windows
Traitor. ;-) You should have recommended the Amiga. If you and other had done that, maybe Amiga would not have disappeared three years later due to lack of sales. ------ And yeah I was similarly unimpressed with Windows 3.0. It was a crappy, shitty OS. To quote someone else: "Using 3.0 and 3.1 largely consisted of opening random program groups, trying to find where your programs were hidden."
Also it was extremely difficult to multitask. If you were running both Word and Excel for example, you had to first minimize the Word window, then locate the icon representing Excel, followed by clicking it. Then if you wanted to switch back, minimize Excel, find the Word icon, and click it. Royal pain in the ass.
- On Mac it was as easy as clicking Apple, which would produce a dropdown of all running programs.
- On Amiga it was even easier. The Amiga-M and Amiga-N keys rapidly flipped through the running programs.
I hated using Windows 3.x. It felt like I was stepping 10 years back in time. It felt like I was using a slow non-multitasking Commodore=64 again. Not until Windows 95 did they finally get a decent interface (still used today). Of course the reason Win95 was so easy is because it was just a clone of the Mac desktop (trashcan, shutdown procedure, finder, et cetera).
- Oh! I see you read Bush's last executive order!
- Oh! I see you read Obama's latest exectuive order!
(Pick whichever one-liner you like best.)
>>>But "dumping" the code (i.e. reverse engineering a 2600 game from just the ROM)
Why on earth would the two Activision programmers need to do that? They could just walk down the hall to David Crane's office and say, "Hey the boss wants us to port Pitfall 2 to the Atari and Commodore computers. Can we have your 2600 source and notes? Thanks." Simple.
As for the C64:
It doesn't play "right". I first played the original game on the Atari console, and later the C64 game. The character doesn't act the same. But on the Atari computer version, it feels identical to the original console version.
So can these hacks be used to get around "NoScript"? I currently have it set to:
- Temporarily allow top-level sites by defualt
--- Base 2nd level Domains (noscript.net)
More simply:
- If the court discovers Opentorrent's owner is the same as Piratebay's owner, they will argue that each individual site may be technically legal, but the OWNER is using them together to commit a crime.
Just as it not illegal to own fertilizer. And it's not illegal to own a detonator. But if you put the two together under the same owner, then you have a potential criminal and he needs to be examined.
Well here's a story from the stone knives and bear claws-era (early 80s):
Two programmers were tasked to convert the Atart VCS/2600 game Pitfall 2 to a Commodore=64 and Atari 800 computer. One said, "The Atari console is so primitive that it's easier to recreate the whole game from scratch," and the other said, "No just copy the 6502 code and then modify it for the varying graphics/sound chips." They then went their separate ways.
- The Commodore=64 programmer recreated the whole game from scratch, and produced a slightly-flawed but decent port.
- The Atari 800 programmer simply dumped the code directly, and then modified it. He produced a port that played identical to the original PLUS he had enough time left-over that he added a whole other game (basically Pitfall 3). So Atari 800 purchasers got two games for the price of one.
Reworking is faster than starting over. Even if the design is a complete mess, there's typically SOME modules that can be reused, and that's time saved
10 antenna-received stations == about 25 channels because of the -2 and -3 subchannels. That's not as many channels as basic cable offers (~50) but then it also doesn't come with a ~$65/month bill.
Well I've looked at the Tesla Roadsters specs, and they are very similar to the EV1. ACEEE.org ranked the EV1 as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic Hybrid and I suspect the same would be true for the Roadster.
.
>>>most people stop in 5 or less hours (within the vehicle's range) for 45 minutes to an hour.
I never stop. 5 minutes to recharge the gasoline and that's it..... there's no possible way to recharge an EV in 5 minutes. As for the rest of your comments you are clearly a fan of EVs, and that's fine, but I am also an electrical engineer who has been studying alternative cars for a decade. The EV doesn't live up to the hype. That's why I bought the Insight Hybrid and not the Rav4 EV several years ago. (Insight was ranked as the cleanest car by ACEEE.)
I think Hybrids are the only practical solution for Americans, who like to drive long distances, and don't want to be limited by an empty battery that takes an hour to recharge. The hybrids offer the best of both EV (efficient) and gasoline/diesel cars (5 minute recharge).
.
>>>there are new technologies (either now going into mass production, or soon to go into mass production) that provide either (a) cheaper batteries with longer life (the silicon based ones) or (b) batteries with greater storage capacities in the same size
>>>
No offense but I heard the same thing in 2000. And yet here we are, still using the same NiMH technology in cars.