Go check the specs on Wally's box. 1.2GB Duron beats the shit out of the Xbox's Cellery (it may say PIII but it has half the cache disabled, making it a Celeron), it also has heaps more memory.
Basically, unless Wally's box has intigrated video based on the NForce (Nforce Athlon boards do exist), the only thing the Xbox beats the Wally box on would be 3D video.
Afterall Linux is open source, meaning anyone can hack the Linux kernal & create their own Linux 2.6.
So why doesn't that happen? & what gives Linus & co the authority to determine the next Linux revisions? I'm not saying he shouldn't, I just wondering why it happens this way when AFICS open source should means its a free for all.
AFAIK blackmail's quite legal as long as one doesn't break the law to commit blackmail.
Afterall what do you think plea-bargaining is - "if you don't plead-out on this lesser charge we'll prosecute you with every charge we think will get past a Committal hearing"
Or look at the way cops will drop charges if you're willing to snitch.
"Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger." Faster
Crap, to win at business one simply has to make a real genuine profit.
Look at Morgan Cars. They have about the most atiquitated auto factory in the world, using some of the most obsolete production methods arround (such as pushing rolling chassis from one plant to another plant across the yard for fitting on body work). They have a virtually nought marketshare & even then can't meet demand & don't even bother marketing their product. But guess what? They make a genuine real profit & actually have increased production (from 9 cars a month to 10 cars a month) This means Morgan's doing better business-wise than the many billion dollar car plants arround the world that don't make a profit (For example all the of Ford US's car divisions which are kept alive by the huge profits of Ford's small truck division).
At the end of the day, the point of business is making a profit, everything else are just s'pose to be ways of doing it.
& this is why IT's now failing, business wise.
The IT segment still locked into past expectations from the 'tulip boom' caused by venture capital gambles, the dot.bomb share price pyramid schemes & the Y2K scams. Consequently IT employees & management expect too much money, relative to the profits the IT segmant actually makes (afterall considering the amount of time IT personel spend bumming on the web, LANing counterstrike, wasting time on office gossip, making coffee, going for promotions, etc; & taking into account the fact that when IT personel are actually doing some real work, more often than not it's on a project that's not really genuinly productive, do IT people really deserve to be paid anymore than brickies labourers, panelbeaters & council road workers)
What's needed is for 25+% of the IT industry to go belly up. This would couse a flood of IT labour & bring down their unrealistic wages. Ontop of which the remain 75% of the industry will gain in marketshare, turnover & economies of scale, making them more productive at less costs per revenue dollar. This brings profits, IE real business success.
Are you one of these bloody Yanks that actually think's it's good that you only get 1 or 2 weeks holiday a year?
Here in Oz I we get away with drinking generic bourbon & coke all day from oversized cans, while at the desk & we still get 5 weeks holiday a year & that's ontop a ADO every month, 2 weeks worth of public holidays & sickies galore.
You Yanks take work too bloody seriously - living to work, when you should be working (as little as possible) to live.
Whether you agree with their actions or not, & whether attacking civilians in immoral is irrilivent, the fact is they put their lives on the line for their beliefs.
A coward would have blown up the WTC (or for that matter, a essential antibiotics plant in Sudan) by remote control using cruise missles
He didn't sell one copy of his software while he was in the US.
Maybe a webtrader that has a contract to sell his employer's software, sold some copies in the US while he just happened to be visiting the US, but that's a completely different thing altogether.
The French carriers, Clemenceau, Foch & Charles De Gaulle, are in 'Extreme Dimensions' (basically decksize including all overhangs) closer to Midway size than they are to the British Light Fleet Carriers (whether the classic cold-war ones or the later VSTOL type). Ontop of which, the Kuzetsov fits in between the Midway & Forestal Classes in everything but the air-wing component (displacement, hull-size & deck size):
British - Colossus Class - late WWII/ cold war angled flight deck catapult Jet carrier - HMS Colossus, Vengeance, Venerable, Mars, Glory, Ocean, Edgar, Theseus, Triumph, Warrior, (French) Arromanches, (Brazil) Minas Gerais (Argentina) Veinticinco De Mayo
Displacement: 18,300 tons full load imensions: 630 x 80 x 23 feet/192 x 24.4 x 7 meters Extreme Dimensions: 695 x 80 x 23 feet/211.8 x 24.4 x 7 meters Aircraft: 37
British - Majestic Class - modified Colossus - HMS Magnificent, Terrible, Majestic, Powerful, Hercules, Leviathan, (Australia) Sydney, Melbourne (Canada) Bonaventure, (India) Vikrant
Displacement: 17,780 tons full load Dimensions: 630 x 80 x 23 feet/192 x 24.4 x 7 meters Extreme Dimensions: 695 x 80 x 23 feet/211.8 x 24.4 x 7 meters Aircraft: 37
British - Centaur Class - Improved Colossus - HMS Centaur, Albion, Bulwark
Displacement: 24,000 tons full load Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 24.5 feet/198 x 27.4 x 7.5 meters Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 90 x 24.5 feet/224.6 x 27.4 x 7.5 meters Aircraft: 42
British - Centaur Class (updated) - VSTOL - HMS Hermes, (India) Viraat
Displacement: 27,000 tons full load Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 27 feet/198 x 27.4 x 8.2 meters Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 123 x 27 feet/224.6 x 37.4 x 8.2 meters Aircraft: 26
British - Invincible class - VSTOL carriers - HMS Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal
Displacement: 20,600 tons full load Dimensions: 632.7 x 90 x 21.3 ft Extreme Dimensions: 688 x 118 x 28.8 ft Aircraft: 14 VSTOL + helicopters
French Clemenceau & Foch cold war angled flight deck catapult Jet carrier
Displacement: 32,700 tons full load Dimensions: 780.8 x 104 x 28.2 feet/238 x 31.7 x 8.6 meters Extreme Dimensions: 869.5 x 168 x 28.2 feet/265 x 51.2 x 8.6 meters Aircraft: 40
French Charles De Gaulle - nuclear powered carrier
Displacement: 36,000 tons full load Dimensions: 780.8 x 103 x 27.8 feet/238 x 31.4 x 8.5 meters Extreme Dimensions: 858 x 211 x 27.8 feet/261.5 x 64.4 x 8.5 meters Aircraft: 35-40
Russian Kuznetsov - fullsize ski-jump carrier
Displacement: 67,000 tons full load Dimensions: 984 x 124.5 x 36 feet/300 x 38 x 11 meters Extreme Dimensions: 990 x 239 x 36 feet/301.8 x 72.8 x 11 meters Aircraft: 30+
US Midway class - 1st generation US Super-Carrier
Displacement: 59,901 tons full load Dimensions: 900 x 113 x 32.75 feet/274.3 x 34.4 x 10 meters Extreme Dimensions: 968 x 136 x 32.75 feet/295 x 41.5 x 10 meters Aircraft: 137 (late WWII vintage) or 75 (mid to late Cold War jets)
US Forrestal class - 2nd generation US Super-Carrier
Displacement: 76,614 tons full load Dimensions: 990 x 129 x 35.5 feet/301.75 x 39.3 x 10.8 meters Extreme Dimensions: 1040 x 250 x 35.5 feet/317 x 76 x 10.8 meters Aircraft: 80+
The best looking carrier in the world, IMAO, potentially the best balanced carrier platform in the world - If only the Soviets had the money to sort it & maintain it, it would be a great platform.
The Su-33 (Su-27K) is undoubtably the best carrier fighter in service ever. It's also the 1st production aircraft in the world with both canards & a traditional tailplane.
In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.
The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)
"...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.
One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left co
The best looking carrier in the world, IMAO, potentially the best balanced carrier platform in the world - If only the Soviets had the money to sort it & maintain it, it would be a great platform.
The Su-33 (Su-27K) is undoubtably the best carrier fighter in service ever. It's also the 1st production aircraft in the world with both canards & a traditional tailplane.
In comparision to the F14 Tomcat the Su33 has more power on take off. While it is not assisted by a catapault the Su33 has a higher thrust to weight ratio and also, due to better aerodynamics, generates more lift. Flaperons were replaced with slotted high lift flaps to increase lift and control at low speeds. Comments from US Naval aviators who visited the Kuznetsov about the Su33 consistantly praised their ability to climb immediately after launch instead of 'hanging' in the air like their catapault launched aircraft.
The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)
"...The Su-32"FN" has 12 armament/store stations and can carry the entire inventory of standoff weapons as well as up to four air-to-air missiles. The total weight for armament comes out to around 8,000 kg (17,600 lbs) with a flight range of around 4,000 km (2,160 nm), increased up to 7,000 km (3,777 nm) with in-flight refueling. It is noteworthy to mention that the Su-32"FN" can carry and employ the UPAZ air refueling store, so one Su-32 could refuel from another. External wing-tip mounted Sorbtsya ECM pods can also be carried.
One of the most fascinating features about the Su-32"FN" is its large side-by-side crew station that contains the left command-pilot and right navigator-armament operator's stations. It is a fully pressurized
all of a sudden they'll feralise into the natural enviroment & take over forests 'n national parks, like aquarium plants from South America & garden ornementals from Africa do In Australia.
lets be honest, in regards to 95% of the shit 95% of people do on a computer, there's virtually no difference in speed between a K6-3 450 & A P4 2.8.
So really, unless one's into 3D games, compiling code, rendering 3D or encoding video, & one already have a 500+mhz PC, replacing it with a new computer is just wanking off, well that is if one's trying to justify it as a need. Of course if one's treating oneself & being honest that one's treating oneself, then it isn't wanking off.
Afterall I'd love a nice new Holden One Tonner, but I'd be wanking off to claim I need one for work, afterall in that regard it performs no better than my old Daihatzu van.
X86 PCs are Little Endian while Macs are big-endian.
This means PC graphics cards won't work unless they are bi-endian.
Voodoo cards, the GeForce MX & some GeForce 3s are bi-endian, meaning a simple flashing of the firmware would make them Mac compatible.
However ATI makes their Radeon cards either exclusively little endian for the PC, or exclusively big endian for the Mac, meaning simply flashing the firmware will make sweet fuckall differance, the PC card still won't work in the Mac, & vice-a-versa
X86 PCs are Little Endian while Macs are big-endian.
This means PC graphics cards won't work unless they are bi-endian.
Voodoo cards, the GeForce MX & some GeForce 3s are bi-endian, meaning a simple flashing of the firmware would make them Mac compatible.
However ATI makes their Radeon cards either exclusively little endian for the PC, or exclusively big endian for the Mac, meaning simply flashing the firmware will make sweet fuckall differance, the PC card still won't work in the Mac, & vice-a-versa
Slashdot Mirror
Go check the specs on Wally's box. 1.2GB Duron beats the shit out of the Xbox's Cellery (it may say PIII but it has half the cache disabled, making it a Celeron), it also has heaps more memory.
Basically, unless Wally's box has intigrated video based on the NForce (Nforce Athlon boards do exist), the only thing the Xbox beats the Wally box on would be 3D video.
Off Linus?
Afterall Linux is open source, meaning anyone can hack the Linux kernal & create their own Linux 2.6.
So why doesn't that happen? & what gives Linus & co the authority to determine the next Linux revisions? I'm not saying he shouldn't, I just wondering why it happens this way when AFICS open source should means its a free for all.
Check out the how to pick locks page at the how stuff works website
the black head's well 'n truelly fucked
Many ATM cash machines still use OS/2, although definitly not a majority these days.
& also many bank teller terminals too
I assume
Arn't they brushed aluminium?
AFAIK blackmail's quite legal as long as one doesn't break the law to commit blackmail.
Afterall what do you think plea-bargaining is - "if you don't plead-out on this lesser charge we'll prosecute you with every charge we think will get past a Committal hearing"
Or look at the way cops will drop charges if you're willing to snitch.
Crap, to win at business one simply has to make a real genuine profit.
Look at Morgan Cars. They have about the most atiquitated auto factory in the world, using some of the most obsolete production methods arround (such as pushing rolling chassis from one plant to another plant across the yard for fitting on body work). They have a virtually nought marketshare & even then can't meet demand & don't even bother marketing their product. But guess what? They make a genuine real profit & actually have increased production (from 9 cars a month to 10 cars a month) This means Morgan's doing better business-wise than the many billion dollar car plants arround the world that don't make a profit (For example all the of Ford US's car divisions which are kept alive by the huge profits of Ford's small truck division).
At the end of the day, the point of business is making a profit, everything else are just s'pose to be ways of doing it.
& this is why IT's now failing, business wise.
The IT segment still locked into past expectations from the 'tulip boom' caused by venture capital gambles, the dot.bomb share price pyramid schemes & the Y2K scams. Consequently IT employees & management expect too much money, relative to the profits the IT segmant actually makes (afterall considering the amount of time IT personel spend bumming on the web, LANing counterstrike, wasting time on office gossip, making coffee, going for promotions, etc; & taking into account the fact that when IT personel are actually doing some real work, more often than not it's on a project that's not really genuinly productive, do IT people really deserve to be paid anymore than brickies labourers, panelbeaters & council road workers)
What's needed is for 25+% of the IT industry to go belly up. This would couse a flood of IT labour & bring down their unrealistic wages. Ontop of which the remain 75% of the industry will gain in marketshare, turnover & economies of scale, making them more productive at less costs per revenue dollar. This brings profits, IE real business success.
Go undo your top button.
Are you one of these bloody Yanks that actually think's it's good that you only get 1 or 2 weeks holiday a year?
Here in Oz I we get away with drinking generic bourbon & coke all day from oversized cans, while at the desk & we still get 5 weeks holiday a year & that's ontop a ADO every month, 2 weeks worth of public holidays & sickies galore.
You Yanks take work too bloody seriously - living to work, when you should be working (as little as possible) to live.
Whether you agree with their actions or not, & whether attacking civilians in immoral is irrilivent, the fact is they put their lives on the line for their beliefs.
A coward would have blown up the WTC (or for that matter, a essential antibiotics plant in Sudan) by remote control using cruise missles
Afterall I can now at least half a dozen administrations there that mach Saddam's for repressiveness.
He didn't sell one copy of his software while he was in the US.
Maybe a webtrader that has a contract to sell his employer's software, sold some copies in the US while he just happened to be visiting the US, but that's a completely different thing altogether.
Hang on it was the the Linux dizzie Caldera, that gave us graphical installers, WTF?!?
The French carriers, Clemenceau, Foch & Charles De Gaulle, are in 'Extreme Dimensions' (basically decksize including all overhangs) closer to Midway size than they are to the British Light Fleet Carriers (whether the classic cold-war ones or the later VSTOL type). Ontop of which, the Kuzetsov fits in between the Midway & Forestal Classes in everything but the air-wing component (displacement, hull-size & deck size):
British - Colossus Class - late WWII/ cold war angled flight deck catapult Jet carrier - HMS Colossus, Vengeance, Venerable, Mars, Glory, Ocean, Edgar, Theseus, Triumph, Warrior, (French) Arromanches, (Brazil) Minas Gerais (Argentina) Veinticinco De Mayo
Displacement: 18,300 tons full load
imensions: 630 x 80 x 23 feet/192 x 24.4 x 7 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 695 x 80 x 23 feet/211.8 x 24.4 x 7 meters
Aircraft: 37
British - Majestic Class - modified Colossus - HMS Magnificent, Terrible, Majestic, Powerful, Hercules, Leviathan, (Australia) Sydney, Melbourne (Canada) Bonaventure, (India) Vikrant
Displacement: 17,780 tons full load
Dimensions: 630 x 80 x 23 feet/192 x 24.4 x 7 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 695 x 80 x 23 feet/211.8 x 24.4 x 7 meters
Aircraft: 37
British - Centaur Class - Improved Colossus - HMS Centaur, Albion, Bulwark
Displacement: 24,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 24.5 feet/198 x 27.4 x 7.5 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 90 x 24.5 feet/224.6 x 27.4 x 7.5 meters
Aircraft: 42
British - Centaur Class (updated) - VSTOL - HMS Hermes, (India) Viraat
Displacement: 27,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 27 feet/198 x 27.4 x 8.2 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 123 x 27 feet/224.6 x 37.4 x 8.2 meters
Aircraft: 26
British - Invincible class - VSTOL carriers - HMS Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal
Displacement: 20,600 tons full load
Dimensions: 632.7 x 90 x 21.3 ft
Extreme Dimensions: 688 x 118 x 28.8 ft
Aircraft: 14 VSTOL + helicopters
French Clemenceau & Foch cold war angled flight deck catapult Jet carrier
Displacement: 32,700 tons full load
Dimensions: 780.8 x 104 x 28.2 feet/238 x 31.7 x 8.6 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 869.5 x 168 x 28.2 feet/265 x 51.2 x 8.6 meters
Aircraft: 40
French Charles De Gaulle - nuclear powered carrier
Displacement: 36,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 780.8 x 103 x 27.8 feet/238 x 31.4 x 8.5 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 858 x 211 x 27.8 feet/261.5 x 64.4 x 8.5 meters
Aircraft: 35-40
Russian Kuznetsov - fullsize ski-jump carrier
Displacement: 67,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 984 x 124.5 x 36 feet/300 x 38 x 11 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 990 x 239 x 36 feet/301.8 x 72.8 x 11 meters
Aircraft: 30+
US Midway class - 1st generation US Super-Carrier
Displacement: 59,901 tons full load
Dimensions: 900 x 113 x 32.75 feet/274.3 x 34.4 x 10 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 968 x 136 x 32.75 feet/295 x 41.5 x 10 meters
Aircraft: 137 (late WWII vintage) or 75 (mid to late Cold War jets)
US Forrestal class - 2nd generation US Super-Carrier
Displacement: 76,614 tons full load
Dimensions: 990 x 129 x 35.5 feet/301.75 x 39.3 x 10.8 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 1040 x 250 x 35.5 feet/317 x 76 x 10.8 meters
Aircraft: 80+
Ever heard of the Edirol - Roland UA100, the iZ Tech - RADAR 24 & the SX-1 Integrated Audio Production Station? They all use BeOS
What with a possible future combination of Su-33 (Su-27K) Sea Flankers, Su-25UTG 'Frogfoots', Su-32FN Sea Strike Flankers & twin (contra-rotating) main-rotor Kamov Choppers, the Kuznetsov has the potential to reign supreme as the most balanced carrier platform in the world (in many ways the Yanks are just too big for anything but all out tier-1 war - think what just one fat US carriers costs to run & maintain for just 1 day).
The Su-33 (Su-27K) is undoubtably the best carrier fighter in service ever. It's also the 1st production aircraft in the world with both canards & a traditional tailplane.
Russian Aviation Gallery:
The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)
Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:
What with a possible future combination of Su-33 (Su-27K) Sea Flankers, Su-25UTG 'Frogfoots', Su-32FN Sea Strike Flankers & twin (contra-rotating) main-rotor Kamov Choppers, the Kuznetsov has the potential to reign supreme as the most balanced carrier platform in the world (in many ways the Yanks are just too big for anything but all out war).
The Su-33 (Su-27K) is undoubtably the best carrier fighter in service ever. It's also the 1st production aircraft in the world with both canards & a traditional tailplane.
Russian Aviation Gallery:
The Su-32FN is the Naval version of the Su-34 Strike Fighter. It has Sukhoi's revolutionary tri-plane layout (Canards in combination with tradional central mainwing & rear tailplane layout), twin nose-wheels, folding wings & tailhook. Also, just like the Su-34 Strike Flanker, it has a amoured Ti cockpit & crew quarters (with cot, loo & food warmer) & low altitude contour navigation. Plus, ontop of its traditional forward AI radar, it also has rear facing air-intercept radar. This works with the only production AI missles that can be fired backwards, IE against the thrust of the aircraft & meaning the missle's actually flying backwards, in relation to its own thrust for the 1st few 1/100s of a second after its fired. Normally only 1 or 2 AI missles are installed facing backwards. These R73 AI missles are thrust-vectored & thus can also be fired forward & the flip over 180 degrees & go backwards or vice-a-versa. Hence only one or at max 2 are mounted backwards, because if needed a forward firing one can be fired backwards too. Can be fitted with all the Su-30's super long range equipment & refueling probe (as do all the 30 series Flankers)
Fighter Tactics Academy Strike Flanker page:
not long ago
remember Caldera?
Maybe MS settled with Caldera on condition they funnel the money to their proxy, SCO
LOL
So are they now buying back the farm?
all of a sudden they'll feralise into the natural enviroment & take over forests 'n national parks, like aquarium plants from South America & garden ornementals from Africa do In Australia.
& there will be no controls to take 'em out
lets be honest, in regards to 95% of the shit 95% of people do on a computer, there's virtually no difference in speed between a K6-3 450 & A P4 2.8.
So really, unless one's into 3D games, compiling code, rendering 3D or encoding video, & one already have a 500+mhz PC, replacing it with a new computer is just wanking off, well that is if one's trying to justify it as a need. Of course if one's treating oneself & being honest that one's treating oneself, then it isn't wanking off.
Afterall I'd love a nice new Holden One Tonner, but I'd be wanking off to claim I need one for work, afterall in that regard it performs no better than my old Daihatzu van.
X86 PCs are Little Endian while Macs are big-endian.
This means PC graphics cards won't work unless they are bi-endian.
Voodoo cards, the GeForce MX & some GeForce 3s are bi-endian, meaning a simple flashing of the firmware would make them Mac compatible.
However ATI makes their Radeon cards either exclusively little endian for the PC, or exclusively big endian for the Mac, meaning simply flashing the firmware will make sweet fuckall differance, the PC card still won't work in the Mac, & vice-a-versa
X86 PCs are Little Endian while Macs are big-endian.
This means PC graphics cards won't work unless they are bi-endian.
Voodoo cards, the GeForce MX & some GeForce 3s are bi-endian, meaning a simple flashing of the firmware would make them Mac compatible.
However ATI makes their Radeon cards either exclusively little endian for the PC, or exclusively big endian for the Mac, meaning simply flashing the firmware will make sweet fuckall differance, the PC card still won't work in the Mac, & vice-a-versa