Mac users can't grasp things as simple as right click and totally wig out when they have to open a command prompt to do something like ipconfig. God help them when their disk drive fills up too. Not as smart.
I dunno about that. The typical Mac users (including and sometimes especially artists) I run across typically read at least one of the thick "Mac Bible" type reference books and love to show off all the little tricks they know. Times have changed since Mac users were just a group of folks too scared of DOS and not quite wealthy enough for a Sun, SGI, or Apollo workstation. Today Mac users have different reasons for using the platform (anti-Microsoft, unix roots, something new/different, strong DV25 media support, etc). Even the casual browsers in the mall Apple Stores seem to posess clue.
It seems to me that more and more of the clueless personal computer users/owners generally just buy whatever they use at work. Generally a Dell or Compaq. (It's funny trying to talk someone out of buying a Compaq--they often argue that they can't buy a Dell as they've never used one before and wouldn't know where to start!)
At one time, the typical Mac user bought his machine because he was scared of DOS and the rest of the PC world. Today Mac users have other reasons. Many buy into the digital media goodies (FinalCutPro, iDVD, etc). Some like the unix aspect. Some are anti-Microsoft.
Granted there are still "oooh, it looks sexy" Mac users, but those are quickly becoming the exception, not the rule.
BTW: take a look at some of the Mac books at Barnes and Noble or Borders, almost half of them are thick, serious unix books!
I used to use a little GUI utility called "linuxconf" way back when. It wasn't pretty, but it worked well and didn't consume many resources (heck, it ran well on a 33 MHz 486!). So... anyone know what happend to linuxconf?
HDVR2 will be handy when all of my local stations go digital (two are holding out for the deadline). But this still leaves me with no easy way to plug in additional inputs (such as from a VCR or Camcorder). Three is also no easy way to seamlessly integrate the beast with a video switcher to handle multiple inputs from different devices.
My audio reciever, on the other hand, has a built-in composite/svideo/component video switcher, which is somewhat handy, but it's more of an edge device (like my tv/monitor). I want a core video switch/pvr that can switch, record, and route multiple video streams for my home theater.
Why can't it record off of cable? Does cable use different frequencies for the same channels or something? I thought they were the same...
Modern TVs can tune both cable and over-the-air stations in a similar manner, and certain cable and air stations share the same frequencies, but not all.
This device is designed for tuning and recording digital (including HDTV) stations. To get these, you need an over-the-air antenna.
Digital cable comes in a variety of flavors, depending on your cable provider. There is no easy way for Elgato to support these. (And there may even be legal issues as some digital cable boxes have bizzare authentication systems).
I currently have a DirecTivo, basiclly a two-tuner Tivo with built-in two-tuner DirecTV reciver. It's great... but it can't record my local TV. Now, DirecTV will be adding a few of my city's local channels to their broadcast in 2005, but not all of the channels.
What I really want is a box with about 5 inputs and 2 outputs. I would like it to switch between my VCR, DVD player, generic DirecTV box (or two), and tune local TV stations. HD capability would be nice too. Add in PVR/timeshifting features and the ability to control said devices. Software upgradability would be nice, perhaps in the future it could learn how to control my future DVD player/recorder to burn to disc some of the shows I have recorded.
I basiclly want a PVR that's also the hub of my home theater. I want to keep discrete components (use my TV as a display, use my audio reciever as an amp, etc) but I need some sort of switching/recording hub to control it all.
An HTPC is an interesting concept, but until it can handle multiple channels of video I/O, it's not of much use to me.
Why not just encode the SD material into DV25, which the MacOS loves. Then users can just use iMovie to edit. Why do devices like this insist on shipping with software intended to reinvent the wheel? I would love a simple PVR for my PowerBook, but I don't need editing features, I can use iMovie for that.
3. How can you coordinate two seperate ISP's for automatic redundancy? I suppose with a LinkProof box or something. And how do you know they aren't coming through the same telco CO?
Google for BGP.
You need to get an IP address block that both ISPs are willing to advertise/route for you. This is not a problem if you deal directly with Sprintlink, UUNet/MCI, AT&T, or another Tier 1 provider. Any modern mid-range Cisco (or Juniper) router can handle multiple connections via BGP. The main limitation is RAM, BGP tables take up about 128 MB, so you probably can't (comfortablly) use a low end bargain 2611 or 4500M for your dual T1s.
You'll run into troubles if you use consumer router hardware or try to use Tier 2 ISPs (Joe's Friendly Internet of Miami).
> Because some stingy old farts that refuse > to cough up the cash and buy a decent > computer want us all to have to maintain > obsolete toolkits so they can keep using > their 486... That's a real good use of time.
How about making GTK 2.6 run as fast or faster than GTK 1.2? Then I'd be glad to jump to the latest version!
How about making Mozilla and FireFox a bit faster and less memory hungry? I know, I know, I should buy faster computers. But there are so many cases where that's difficult or impossible. I would love to recycle older machines as browsing-boxes for friends, relatives, even libraries if only they ran Mozilla somewhat faster. There's still life left in a PII-350.
>> we're also seeking ideas that will make Firefox >> 2.0 blow every other browser out of the water.
>The competition: Internet Explorer, Netscape, Lynx, >and Safari. >I'd say it's already pretty much covered...
I would have to agree that FireFox is pretty much the best browser today. But the performance on older hardware isn't much better than that of a new build of Mozilla. Also, the move to GTK2 and feature-creep are slowing it down futher.
Safari on the other hand is very basic and very fast. Try it on a 300 MHz G3 to see what I mean. Apple did a great job of making a basic browser out of Konq/KHTML. I would **LOVE** to see a similar app for X11 (so I can run it on Linux, Solaris, and IRIX). Konq Embedded is close, but it's lacking some important features and isn't as fast as it could be.
Hey! That was the original idea for Phoenix! But, seems like FireFox these days is just as bloated as Mozilla proper. (Or maybe Mozilla has gotten some significant optimizations since 1.0)
Considering normal computer replacement cycle is 3-4 years
I wish this were the case everywhere. In most of the businesses I work with, the upgrade cycle is about 4-6 years depending on the scope of the project and the machine's use. Desktop office PCs tend to be upgraded every 4 years, project-specific machines every 6. Very specific setups, when usually not connected to the LAN, often never get upgraded. It "just works".
Security patches are deployed fairly quickly. OS updates are rare and generally occur at the start of a new project. Right now, XP SP1 is the most common on the office desktop, but Win2K is very close behind. For most existing projects, Win2K is pretty much the standard. Some projects nearing their end are still on NT4 SP6 (thank heavens for our good network security). A couple of the smaller businesses still a lot of Win98 (ack!) but most jumped to NT4 or better long time ago.
Keyboards, mice, and monitors typically aren't hard to request as needed, but a full system upgrade is like pulling teeth. Exception: recptionists. They generally have a new Dell with a 20" LCD. (Or 17" LCD iMac G4). Their machines are updated often. They generally spend their days forwarding email poems and chain letters to their friends.What a lovely world.
I use IE on most of my PCs because it's fast. Not just fast to launch (that's obvious) but faster at loading pages and faster at scrolling.
In the Real World, Pentium II systems are the norm. Not everyone has a watercooled P4 monster. Heck, in most of the machines I see and work with, you're lucky to have a real video card. There's nothing like a PII/350 with onboard video using shared PC100 RAM. Sooo slooow.
Back to IE, it's *much* faster than even the latest builds of Mozilla and FireFox. With config tweaking and other incantations, the gap narrows a bit, but IE still wins.
2. They won't be able to deliver for school time and want to save possible Christmas sales.
Only the original CRT iMac G3s were for schools. These days, the CRT eMac G4 is for schools while the LCD iMac G4 is for home / "trendy" business. Why? Because school kids have a tendancy of breaking LCDs. Scratches, marker,even pencils thru the TFT panel. You name it. CRTs survive quite a bit longer in the edu market.
ditch the lamp look. It stopped me from buying a G4 iMac.
I bought a used 800 MHz 15" iMac to use as general workstation/terminal in our server room. I actually love the swing-arm monitor mount, it's really handy especially when you're not always sitting in the same position. Half the time I use that machine, I'm standing up, so it's **MUCH** easier/nicer to adjust and use than a traditional CRT or LCD monitor. The "Apple Pro Keyboard" is nice too. The mouse was crap, replaced it with a nice logitech from the spares closet.
Does anyone know if a monorail actually has any advantages over regular two rail operation and under what situations?
It may be hard for many Slashdotters to understand this, but the public generally goes for aesthetics and the wiz-bang factor (rather than the cold hard facts). To many people, a monorail is just plain cool.
This can also work against the monorail, though. In bad economic times, the public may judge a monorail to be too extravagant of an expense (even if it's the same cost as traditional Chicago-style "el" eleveted rail).
Monorail "track" is a lot more expensive to build per foot than light rail. That's the main reason Disney hasn't built any new monorail for a while
In the case of Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL, Disney hasn't built any new track as there's nowhere else to extend the scenic monorail line. MGM Studios, Wild Animal Kingdom, and Blizzard Beach are located adjacent to the two main attractions (the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT), hidden from view only by some trees. The monorail ride to one of these newer attractions would be very short and would kill the whole experience.
Granted, the alternative (the smelly, slow busses) is no better...
With all the land Disney owns in the Reddy Creek area, I don't understand why they built all of their newer parks so close together, especially when they started out with a nice distance between the Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, and the parking complex.
I've been driving my new toy for about 3 weeks now and love the common-rail direct injection turbodiesel engine. It still sounds like a diesel when it starts (but very muffled, more quiet than a Jetta TDI) but sounds like a gasoline engine once its warmed up. No diesel smell either. I bought it because I loved my 1996 E300D and I'm a diesel fan.
Anyway, my first tank of fuel lasted 580 miles, I calculated about 34 mpg combined city/highway (about 75% city). EPA sticker is 27/37. Not bad for a car that weighs a little over 4000 lbs. I'm taking it on a cross country trip this summer, can't wait to see what the real highway mileage is. (I also want to test out the ~370 ft/lbs of torque for passing!!)
That said, I would still like to see a turbodiesel 3-series BMW here in the states.
Ye who speeds, cuts people off, and winds through traffic, is the first to reach the red light. ... and is the first person to reach for the red light override button.
The whole system should be dumped in favor of vehicle choice, not artificial limits put on cars by the government.
The truck exemptions (that allow for SUVs to have pretty much any fuel economy [or lack there of]) came from the late 1970s when most trucks were used by farmer and construction workers. The idea was to help those people, who generally are involved in small business and make peanuts anyway.
Times have changed, now everybody and his brother has an SUV or pickup truck (even if they don't admit it). The regulations haven't changed, not because of a scam, but because the federal beaurocracy is a mess. Sure, the oil-loving administration isn't going to hurry along any changes, but they aren't doing anything actively to prevent such changes either.
Another problem is their update policy. With VS6, there were service packs and pathches available, with.NET you have to buy a newer version. No free updates/bugfixes any more. At least none I could find on their homepage.
This isn't just a VS thing, it's a Microsoft thing in general. VS5 and VS6 were common during the (long) run of WinNT 4.0. Both WinNT and VS had service packs about twice a year... and a long life before they were each replaced. These days Microsoft is on a much shorter replacement/upgrade cycle. People like me aren't too happy with that, but if I was an investor in Microsoft, I'd demand nothing less!
Slashdot Mirror
Mac users can't grasp things as simple as right click and totally wig out when they have to open a command prompt to do something like ipconfig. God help them when their disk drive fills up too. Not as smart.
I dunno about that. The typical Mac users (including and sometimes especially artists) I run across typically read at least one of the thick "Mac Bible" type reference books and love to show off all the little tricks they know. Times have changed since Mac users were just a group of folks too scared of DOS and not quite wealthy enough for a Sun, SGI, or Apollo workstation. Today Mac users have different reasons for using the platform (anti-Microsoft, unix roots, something new/different, strong DV25 media support, etc). Even the casual browsers in the mall Apple Stores seem to posess clue.
It seems to me that more and more of the clueless personal computer users/owners generally just buy whatever they use at work. Generally a Dell or Compaq. (It's funny trying to talk someone out of buying a Compaq--they often argue that they can't buy a Dell as they've never used one before and wouldn't know where to start!)
At one time, the typical Mac user bought his machine because he was scared of DOS and the rest of the PC world. Today Mac users have other reasons. Many buy into the digital media goodies (FinalCutPro, iDVD, etc). Some like the unix aspect. Some are anti-Microsoft.
Granted there are still "oooh, it looks sexy" Mac users, but those are quickly becoming the exception, not the rule.
BTW: take a look at some of the Mac books at Barnes and Noble or Borders, almost half of them are thick, serious unix books!
I used to use a little GUI utility called "linuxconf" way back when. It wasn't pretty, but it worked well and didn't consume many resources (heck, it ran well on a 33 MHz 486!). So... anyone know what happend to linuxconf?
HDVR2 will be handy when all of my local stations go digital (two are holding out for the deadline). But this still leaves me with no easy way to plug in additional inputs (such as from a VCR or Camcorder). Three is also no easy way to seamlessly integrate the beast with a video switcher to handle multiple inputs from different devices.
My audio reciever, on the other hand, has a built-in composite/svideo/component video switcher, which is somewhat handy, but it's more of an edge device (like my tv/monitor). I want a core video switch/pvr that can switch, record, and route multiple video streams for my home theater.
Why can't it record off of cable? Does cable use different frequencies for the same channels or something? I thought they were the same...
Modern TVs can tune both cable and over-the-air stations in a similar manner, and certain cable and air stations share the same frequencies, but not all.
This device is designed for tuning and recording digital (including HDTV) stations. To get these, you need an over-the-air antenna.
Digital cable comes in a variety of flavors, depending on your cable provider. There is no easy way for Elgato to support these. (And there may even be legal issues as some digital cable boxes have bizzare authentication systems).
I want a souped-up ReplayTV.
I currently have a DirecTivo, basiclly a two-tuner Tivo with built-in two-tuner DirecTV reciver. It's great... but it can't record my local TV. Now, DirecTV will be adding a few of my city's local channels to their broadcast in 2005, but not all of the channels.
What I really want is a box with about 5 inputs and 2 outputs. I would like it to switch between my VCR, DVD player, generic DirecTV box (or two), and tune local TV stations. HD capability would be nice too. Add in PVR/timeshifting features and the ability to control said devices. Software upgradability would be nice, perhaps in the future it could learn how to control my future DVD player/recorder to burn to disc some of the shows I have recorded.
I basiclly want a PVR that's also the hub of my home theater. I want to keep discrete components (use my TV as a display, use my audio reciever as an amp, etc) but I need some sort of switching/recording hub to control it all.
An HTPC is an interesting concept, but until it can handle multiple channels of video I/O, it's not of much use to me.
Why not just encode the SD material into DV25, which the MacOS loves. Then users can just use iMovie to edit. Why do devices like this insist on shipping with software intended to reinvent the wheel? I would love a simple PVR for my PowerBook, but I don't need editing features, I can use iMovie for that.
3. How can you coordinate two seperate ISP's for automatic redundancy? I suppose with a LinkProof box or something. And how do you know they aren't coming through the same telco CO?
Google for BGP.
You need to get an IP address block that both ISPs are willing to advertise/route for you. This is not a problem if you deal directly with Sprintlink, UUNet/MCI, AT&T, or another Tier 1 provider. Any modern mid-range Cisco (or Juniper) router can handle multiple connections via BGP. The main limitation is RAM, BGP tables take up about 128 MB, so you probably can't (comfortablly) use a low end bargain 2611 or 4500M for your dual T1s.
You'll run into troubles if you use consumer router hardware or try to use Tier 2 ISPs (Joe's Friendly Internet of Miami).
> Because some stingy old farts that refuse
> to cough up the cash and buy a decent
> computer want us all to have to maintain
> obsolete toolkits so they can keep using
> their 486... That's a real good use of time.
How about making GTK 2.6 run as fast or faster than GTK 1.2? Then I'd be glad to jump to the latest version!
How about making Mozilla and FireFox a bit faster and less memory hungry? I know, I know, I should buy faster computers. But there are so many cases where that's difficult or impossible. I would love to recycle older machines as browsing-boxes for friends, relatives, even libraries if only they ran Mozilla somewhat faster. There's still life left in a PII-350.
>> 2) Please keep GTK+ 1.x support
> Just wondering...why? Is GTK+ 2.x not well-
> supported on certain architectures, or what?
Performance and RAM consumption, mainly. GTK 1.2 is easier on older hardware than GTK 2.x. (Note: I haven't yet worked with GTK 2.4)
> That's a good idea, but it has nothing to do with
> machine learning. Maybe you could submit it
> as a feature request in bugzilla instead?
I'm wondering how long it'll be before we see the code to this feature submitted to the FireFox CVS. 2 hours from first post? 5 hours?
Whoa! Good call! That's an awesome, basic feature that could easily be added to FireFox without bogging it down.
(So many of the other suggestions so far would make FireFox slow to a crawl. Lets keep it lean and mean, please!)
>> we're also seeking ideas that will make Firefox
>> 2.0 blow every other browser out of the water.
>The competition: Internet Explorer, Netscape, Lynx,
>and Safari.
>I'd say it's already pretty much covered...
I would have to agree that FireFox is pretty much the best browser today. But the performance on older hardware isn't much better than that of a new build of Mozilla. Also, the move to GTK2 and feature-creep are slowing it down futher.
Safari on the other hand is very basic and very fast. Try it on a 300 MHz G3 to see what I mean. Apple did a great job of making a basic browser out of Konq/KHTML. I would **LOVE** to see a similar app for X11 (so I can run it on Linux, Solaris, and IRIX). Konq Embedded is close, but it's lacking some important features and isn't as fast as it could be.
Long live FireFox--but keep it slim!
>> make the browser run faster, use less memory.
Hey! That was the original idea for Phoenix! But, seems like FireFox these days is just as bloated as Mozilla proper. (Or maybe Mozilla has gotten some significant optimizations since 1.0)
1) Make it faster
2) Please keep GTK+ 1.x support
Considering normal computer replacement cycle is 3-4 years
I wish this were the case everywhere. In most of the businesses I work with, the upgrade cycle is about 4-6 years depending on the scope of the project and the machine's use. Desktop office PCs tend to be upgraded every 4 years, project-specific machines every 6. Very specific setups, when usually not connected to the LAN, often never get upgraded. It "just works".
Security patches are deployed fairly quickly. OS updates are rare and generally occur at the start of a new project. Right now, XP SP1 is the most common on the office desktop, but Win2K is very close behind. For most existing projects, Win2K is pretty much the standard. Some projects nearing their end are still on NT4 SP6 (thank heavens for our good network security). A couple of the smaller businesses still a lot of Win98 (ack!) but most jumped to NT4 or better long time ago.
Keyboards, mice, and monitors typically aren't hard to request as needed, but a full system upgrade is like pulling teeth. Exception: recptionists. They generally have a new Dell with a 20" LCD. (Or 17" LCD iMac G4). Their machines are updated often. They generally spend their days forwarding email poems and chain letters to their friends.What a lovely world.
I use IE on most of my PCs because it's fast. Not just fast to launch (that's obvious) but faster at loading pages and faster at scrolling.
In the Real World, Pentium II systems are the norm. Not everyone has a watercooled P4 monster. Heck, in most of the machines I see and work with, you're lucky to have a real video card. There's nothing like a PII/350 with onboard video using shared PC100 RAM. Sooo slooow.
Back to IE, it's *much* faster than even the latest builds of Mozilla and FireFox. With config tweaking and other incantations, the gap narrows a bit, but IE still wins.
I would love Mozilla, *IF* it was faster.
2. They won't be able to deliver for school time and want to save possible Christmas sales.
Only the original CRT iMac G3s were for schools. These days, the CRT eMac G4 is for schools while the LCD iMac G4 is for home / "trendy" business. Why? Because school kids have a tendancy of breaking LCDs. Scratches, marker,even pencils thru the TFT panel. You name it. CRTs survive quite a bit longer in the edu market.
ditch the lamp look. It stopped me from buying a G4 iMac.
I bought a used 800 MHz 15" iMac to use as general workstation/terminal in our server room. I actually love the swing-arm monitor mount, it's really handy especially when you're not always sitting in the same position. Half the time I use that machine, I'm standing up, so it's **MUCH** easier/nicer to adjust and use than a traditional CRT or LCD monitor. The "Apple Pro Keyboard" is nice too. The mouse was crap, replaced it with a nice logitech from the spares closet.
Does anyone know if a monorail actually has any advantages over regular two rail operation and under what situations?
It may be hard for many Slashdotters to understand this, but the public generally goes for aesthetics and the wiz-bang factor (rather than the cold hard facts). To many people, a monorail is just plain cool.
This can also work against the monorail, though. In bad economic times, the public may judge a monorail to be too extravagant of an expense (even if it's the same cost as traditional Chicago-style "el" eleveted rail).
Monorail "track" is a lot more expensive to build per foot than light rail. That's the main reason Disney hasn't built any new monorail for a while
In the case of Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL, Disney hasn't built any new track as there's nowhere else to extend the scenic monorail line. MGM Studios, Wild Animal Kingdom, and Blizzard Beach are located adjacent to the two main attractions (the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT), hidden from view only by some trees. The monorail ride to one of these newer attractions would be very short and would kill the whole experience.
Granted, the alternative (the smelly, slow busses) is no better...
With all the land Disney owns in the Reddy Creek area, I don't understand why they built all of their newer parks so close together, especially when they started out with a nice distance between the Magic Kingdom, EPCOT, and the parking complex.
I've been driving my new toy for about 3 weeks now and love the common-rail direct injection turbodiesel engine. It still sounds like a diesel when it starts (but very muffled, more quiet than a Jetta TDI) but sounds like a gasoline engine once its warmed up. No diesel smell either. I bought it because I loved my 1996 E300D and I'm a diesel fan.
Anyway, my first tank of fuel lasted 580 miles, I calculated about 34 mpg combined city/highway (about 75% city). EPA sticker is 27/37. Not bad for a car that weighs a little over 4000 lbs. I'm taking it on a cross country trip this summer, can't wait to see what the real highway mileage is. (I also want to test out the ~370 ft/lbs of torque for passing!!)
That said, I would still like to see a turbodiesel 3-series BMW here in the states.
Ye who speeds, cuts people off, and winds through traffic, is the first to reach the red light.
... and is the first person to reach for the red light override button.
The whole system should be dumped in favor of vehicle choice, not artificial limits put on cars by the government.
The truck exemptions (that allow for SUVs to have pretty much any fuel economy [or lack there of]) came from the late 1970s when most trucks were used by farmer and construction workers. The idea was to help those people, who generally are involved in small business and make peanuts anyway.
Times have changed, now everybody and his brother has an SUV or pickup truck (even if they don't admit it). The regulations haven't changed, not because of a scam, but because the federal beaurocracy is a mess. Sure, the oil-loving administration isn't going to hurry along any changes, but they aren't doing anything actively to prevent such changes either.
Another problem is their update policy. With VS6, there were service packs and pathches available, with .NET you have to buy a newer version.
No free updates/bugfixes any more. At least none I could find on their homepage.
This isn't just a VS thing, it's a Microsoft thing in general. VS5 and VS6 were common during the (long) run of WinNT 4.0. Both WinNT and VS had service packs about twice a year... and a long life before they were each replaced. These days Microsoft is on a much shorter replacement/upgrade cycle. People like me aren't too happy with that, but if I was an investor in Microsoft, I'd demand nothing less!