Consumer goods have gotten cheap because they are being "engineered" for cheap production.
Compare today's $7 widget to the $10 widget you bought in 1996. The newer widget weighs half as much, is made from inferior materials, and won't last nearly as long. You're not saving $3, you're being ripped off.
With the exception of consumer electonics, most of the retail goods have gotten significantly more expensive in the past 10 - 20 years... when you hold quality constant.
The original Jobs Mac demo didn't use MacInTalk, it actually used a very early Mac port of Mark Barton's Software Automatic Mouth. SAM ran fine on 64K Apple II systems, and my guess is the Mac version worked ok with 128K. The reason the original Mac demo took up so much RAM is because of its fancy graphics running from RAM. Not too shabby for being written in a few days and they probably could have made it work on a 128K Mac by having it load each segment of the demo graphics from disk as needed.
Speak takes up 36 KB of disk space and can talk quite well on a 128K Mac. Give it a whirl.
Browsing the usenet, I see several comments from Mac 128K users that have played with MacInTalk, so it seems to work with that limited RAM. Perhaps the final released version of MacInTalk was a further optimized version of the SAM port?
By default, Xcode uses gcc. In fact, Xcode itself is just a GUI development environment, you can use it with other compilers (such as IBM's G5 compiler). It's fairly simple to configure Xcode to use Intel's compilers if you find yourself in a situation where Intel's compilers would give you a boost. Where these "alternative" compilers are really helpful is with C++ and FORTRAN. Xcode supports C++ but I'm not sure about FORTRAN.
And you can always compile from the command-line, either directly or with a makefile.
If this shrine works as a networkable PVR and is available next week, sign me up for three of them.
I hope Apple (or anyone, really) steps up to the plate with a PVR system that JustWorks. One that I can buy an use today without having to work around bugs or the cruft an entire Windows OS or have to wait for "the next upgrade".
Extra points to someone who gets it to work nicely with DirecTV and/or DISH Network.
Back in those days it was Apple/Motorola slamming the first gen Pentium II versus their first gen Power PC 750 "G3".
The G3 in 233 and 266 MHz flavors was faster than the PII in its 233 and 266 MHz flavors. But eventually the PII was shipping at 450 MHz while Motorola was still churning out 350 MHz G3s. Apple slipped behind and had to use other tactics (more cache, wider busses, etc) to try to compete.
Today Intel has the Pentium M, more specifically, the second generation Pentium M, available with dual cores. Sure looks a lot better than the vaporware that Motorola/Freescale is advertising, or the big and hot IBM PowerPC 970 "G5" or the in-order (poor for multitasking) game console versions of the G5.
I think Apple made the right move, I just wish Intel had a better naming system for their CPUs.
The simpli.biz site seems to be blank, you're right. I can access my server and the simpli control panels just fine though, so it must only be their site that's fubar.
Worst experience was with a company that was so bad it was eventually bought out by Verio. Billing was totally messed up, my account on a shared server never worked quite right, and my leased/dedicated server had the most botched install of SuSE I've ever seen.
Best experience has been with 10for10.com / Simpli.biz. Small mom-and-pop type business yet they're located in the silicon valley with their equipment in one of the best datacenters on the west coast. Doesn't get any better than that!
According to Netcraft the machine is running Apache 1.3.33 on what is probably Mac OS X 10.3.
Regarding classic mac os and WebStar, I have used versions 1.0 thru 3.0 on Macs and Mac clones in my high school on Mac OS 7.6 thru 9.1. Prior to WebStar we used MacHTTPd and even NSCA HTTPd on a NeXTstation.
What you said about a modal dialog box locking the system is somewhat true, however it generally is triggered by other applications. There were only a few very early versions of WebStar that would actually freeze themselves with their own dialog boxes. More common was a modal dialog box from another application that did the deed. On our servers (Mac IIci, Mac Quadra 605, PowerComputing Mac clone) we ran WebStar (WWW), Rumpus (FTP), Eudora Internet Mail Server (POP+SMTP), QuickDNSpro (DNS), FileMakerPro (DB), Lasso (FileMaker web CGi interface), Timbuktu (sort of like VNC), and a variety of scripts for log analysis and web searching. Over the first year we had a couple freeze-ups of the server, so we dove into the software to see what we could do. Turns out that simply updating the apps to their latest patch/bugfix release solved most of the problems. Also Mac OS 8.6 and newer were based on an updated kernel with updated threading support and solved even more issues. (Of course by the time 8.6 shipped we were already trying out FreeBSD and Mac OS X) For insurance we bought a watchdog dongle that plugged into the ADB (apple desktop bus -- keyboard/mouse) port and would force a restart if the software ever halted. In the 2 years after our overhaul I think we had one crash and the dongle successfully rebooted the server in a matter of minutes.
Maybe we were lucky, or maybe we just took the time to read the manuals to avoid the gotchas. I have no regrets in using Classic Mac OS as a server. Today I like Mac OS X for the desktop, but it's Solaris and FreeBSD that I run on my servers.
That exact version string seems to suggest Mac OS X 10.3. Who knows what hardware it's running on, especially in a high school. I've seen 10.3 running on an original tray-load 1998 CRT iMac G3 -- 233 MHz, 64 MB, it isn't pretty. Slow as XP on an original Pentium. You pretty much need a blue&white G3 minitower or a slot-load 2000 CRT iMac G3 (350+MHz) to run Mac OS X 10.3/10.4 with decent performance. Versions 10.0 - 10.2 were even slower.
Why the server actually crashed is a good question for the Apache and Darwin/OSX gurus.
BTW, I'm not aware of any Apple subsidies for schools. Sometimes Apple will make low bid, but nothing too different from what Dell does. I *wish* Apple subsidized their hardware, then maybe my high school and college would have had semi-modern machines rather than their 10-year-old Macs and 5-year-old PCs.
It seems like the reliability of the original PowerBook G4 (the titanium "TiBook") varies greatly. Some people have had nothing but trouble, others have beaten on theirs for the past 5 years without any problems. You seem to be one of the luckier ones.
The second generation PowerBook G4 (the aluminum "AlBook") seems to be pretty sturdy. WAY better hinge. Much heavier duty. Doesn't show scratches. Etc.
I heard so many great things about the iMac (Flavored ones) and when I got one: I was REALLY disappointed. It kept locking up, had to reboot often, etc.... In all due honesty, I was using a lot of MS software on it - yes, I'm paranoid too about that - i.e. MS writing shit for Mac.
Which family of flavored CRT iMacs, those with tray-load CD-ROM (266 and 333 MHz G3, 66 MHz FSB, RagePro) or those with slot-load CD-RW/DVD-ROM (350 - 700 MHz G3, 100 MHz FSB, Rage128)? Which version(s) of Mac OS?
The original tray-load models had some firmware-related stability issues. I think it was the third or maybe even the fourth revision of the firmware that finally fixed the last of the bugs, especially the really pesky USB related bugs. Flashing the firmware wasn't difficult, but involved some strange steps including holding down the NMI button until beeps were heard, etc. Thankfully the documentation was very easy to follow. The slot-load models had one or two firmware updates, the later of which was required for newer versions of Mac OS X.
The iMac original came out in the days of Mac OS 8.1, which was an OK release of the Classic Mac OS. Most of the ickyness of the System 7.5 days and the slowness of the original 8.0 were corrected. 8.5 had some problems again, but 8.6 and 8.6.1 fixed that. Ditto for 9.0, its problems were solved by 9.1. The last release was 9.2.2. I personally haven't used anything newer than 9.1 before I moved to OS X. See the thing is, Apple did release major updates to the OS with lots of bug fixes... but it still was Classic Mac OS. Roughty translated, that means a fine OS for doing one task at a time. Quake 3 and FAKK2 even ran ok on the slot-load iMac. Photoshop and iMovie were a pleasure to use on 400+ MHz models. You mentioned Microsoft software, I have to admit that Mac version of Office 98 was a fine peice of Mac software. Office 2001 was a little slower, but 98 ran great on even the 333 MHz models.
Doing more than one or two things at a time with the Classic (pre-OS X) Mac OS was a recipe for disaster, however. **Especially** when one of those tasks was running a web browser. Netscape 4.x was a buggy mess and without proper memory protection, liked to kill the OS. (Mac OS 8.6 and later had limited memory protection and it was possible to kill ("force-quit") and restart applications without rebooting, but this was still a pain). Mac versions of Internet Explorer were, in my opinion, just as awful as anything Netscape ever put out, maybe even worse. The poor theading support and poor networking of Classic Mac OS didn't help the situation any.
To sum this up, I have used many Macs from that era for many tasks, including Apple/Claris/AppleWorks, MS Office, Photoshop, WebStar (web serving), Rumpus (FTP serving), FileMaker (database client and server) and have been generally pleased. However, as a web surfing machine, it sucked... it sucked badly.
On the bright side, I still use several 500 MHz slot-load iMacs in a variety of fruity flavors for web surfing at home and work. With 384mb ram, Mac OS 10.3.9 and 10.4.x, they run Safari, Camino, and Firefox just great, especially when running G3-optimized builds of Camino and Firefox. I have not yet tried any of the nightly builds of Safari/Webkit. I now prefer Mac OS X as a web surfing platform. Funny how things change.
You'd be certifiably crazy to think that a Windows server would be as stable or as reliable as an AS/400 server. AS/400 (iSeries) systems are almost as hardcore as they come, and much less expensive than S/390 (zSeries) or Tandem->Compaq->HP NonStop Himalaya.
However, if you have no AS/400 admins in house, but you have plenty of Windows Server gurus, well, then I think you would be better off with Windows. I've seen the same situation with Linux. Company decides to switch servers to Linux but the admins only know how to speak Windows, disaster ensues.
Doesn't he mean Windows Explorer rather then Internet Explorer?
The Windows file manager is the same thing as Internet Explorer, and Control Panel for that matter. Don't belive me? Change the path sometime... load up "http://www.google.com", then change the address to "C:\" or "Control Panel". Or conversely, open the control panel from the Start menu, then change the address from "Control Panel" to your URL of choice.
This kind of works with the file manager in IRIX 6.3+, although it's HTML engine is very outdated. Open up any file manager window and change the path to a URL, such as "http://www.google.com"! Neat stuff back in 1996...
This workaround broke thumnail view for me in explorer, but it's no big deal, thumbnail view looks pretty but it slows down explorer. At least you have a choice -- being r00ted by some new worm or lose one little eyecandy feature.
One of the great mysteries of the universe: who at Sun though it was a good idea to put the caps lock key below the caps lock key?
What this poster is asking is "why did sun swap the location of the capslock and control keys?".
NeXT did the same thing on their keyboards and I've seen it on other UNIX systems as well. I think it's because UNIX users tend to use CTRL a lot more than they use CAPS-LOCK. I actually prefer the "Sun" layout as it's easier for me to hit the CTRL key in that location, and I rarely accidently hit CAPS-LOCK that way.
FWIW: Sun sells two versions of they USA keyboard.... one with the "UNIX" layout and one with the more common "PC" layout.
I thought Apple had something of a resurgence in the last couple years, but I don't see much indication of that.
Apple's profits are at record highs and their sales are way up. Apple is growing and expanding. **BUT** the rest of the computer industry is growing faster. As a result, Apple's marketshare continues to drop.
It depeonds on what sector of the business market you're talking about. People with heavier CPU usage had a variety of UNIX workstation to choose from (Sun, Apollo, AT&T, SGI) as well as the DEC MicroVAX workstation for VMS. Apple tried their hand at a business PC with the Apple/// (man what a sad story of design-by-management). There were also several cheap machines that ran CP/M. But for the most part the business world was dominated by Big Iron driving terminals. IBM AS/400, IBM S/360 and S/390, Data General Nova/Eclipse, DEC VAX, and many others. There's a reason why we have termainl standards such as VT100, tn3270, and tn5250!
I was recently introduced to RISC OS on a Castle Iyonix. Pretty neat for a new machine running an OS with some history. There's also something geeky-cool about running an ARM / Xscale CPU on the desktop.
The PET never had more marketshare than the TRS-80, in fact it had at most about a quarter of the of the TRS-80's marketshare. You're misreading those (crappy) graphs. The TRS-80 was the best selling computer in 1980.
Yes but which version of HDMI there are currently 1.0 (released Dec 2002) and 1.1 (released May 2004). Second of all I was of the understanding you couldn't get true 1080i with component inputs. HDMI is "supposed" to be backward compliant with DVI at least those using the CEA-861 profile for DTVs. I suppose all you need, if you have a DVI input which I immagine you would if its a 3 year old rear projection HDTV, is a HDMI to DVI cable. Correct me if I am wrong, you could spend all day reading specifications and instructions and still not know what the hell is going on. I can only immagine how pissed regular consumers will be when they find their 3 grand tv doesn't play movies.
HDMI and DVI are essentially the same when it comes to normal computer-style digital video, you can easily buy cheap HDMI DVI adapters. But HDMI generally adds HDCP encyrption/copy protection (there's also DVI+DHCP which is essentially the same as HDMI+HDCP), which is what will be needed for 720p and 1080i in digital form from BluRay and HDDVD.
My TV has a DVI input as well as four sets of component inputs. The DVI input does not support HDCP. Supposedly if I were to connect a BluRay or HDDVD player to my TV's DVI via a HDMI adapter the TV would not understand the encrypted HD signal and the player would have to revert to a non-encrypted standard def 480p signal instead. These HD players will have component, but only for standard def (current DVD style) 480p.
Component does indeed support 1080i, in fact that's the only way to currently view 1080i with the new XBOX 360 as there currently is no DVI or HDMI cable for it... just composite, svideo, and component. I have seen from experience that 1080i over component does require three good matched cables to get a crisp picture. I'm guessing the bandwidth for that analog signal is pushing the limits of RCA cables.
From what I gather, neither BluRay nor HDDVD will suport full HD resolution via component video, instead consumers will have to use HDMI for its HDCP copy protection.
Well, this is fine if I had a new TV... but instead I have a beautiful 3 year old rear projection HDTV that uses analog component inputs. This is currently connected to a HD DirecTV reciever and my DVD player. The DVD player is of course 480p but I do get as high as 1080i with some of the DirecTV channels.
So now what am I going to do when BluRay or HDDVD comes out and I want to view the full resolution siginal? What are the odds Sony will sell me new electronics to add HDCP digital to my TV? Will I have to use an illegal device to convert the digital stream to component for my TV?
Slashdot Mirror
Consumer goods have gotten cheap because they are being "engineered" for cheap production.
Compare today's $7 widget to the $10 widget you bought in 1996. The newer widget weighs half as much, is made from inferior materials, and won't last nearly as long. You're not saving $3, you're being ripped off.
With the exception of consumer electonics, most of the retail goods have gotten significantly more expensive in the past 10 - 20 years... when you hold quality constant.
I hear Duke Nukem Forever is going to run on the Mac.
The original Jobs Mac demo didn't use MacInTalk, it actually used a very early Mac port of Mark Barton's Software Automatic Mouth. SAM ran fine on 64K Apple II systems, and my guess is the Mac version worked ok with 128K. The reason the original Mac demo took up so much RAM is because of its fancy graphics running from RAM. Not too shabby for being written in a few days and they probably could have made it work on a 128K Mac by having it load each segment of the demo graphics from disk as needed.
Speak takes up 36 KB of disk space and can talk quite well on a 128K Mac. Give it a whirl.
Browsing the usenet, I see several comments from Mac 128K users that have played with MacInTalk, so it seems to work with that limited RAM. Perhaps the final released version of MacInTalk was a further optimized version of the SAM port?
By default, Xcode uses gcc. In fact, Xcode itself is just a GUI development environment, you can use it with other compilers (such as IBM's G5 compiler). It's fairly simple to configure Xcode to use Intel's compilers if you find yourself in a situation where Intel's compilers would give you a boost. Where these "alternative" compilers are really helpful is with C++ and FORTRAN. Xcode supports C++ but I'm not sure about FORTRAN.
And you can always compile from the command-line, either directly or with a makefile.
If this shrine works as a networkable PVR and is available next week, sign me up for three of them.
I hope Apple (or anyone, really) steps up to the plate with a PVR system that JustWorks. One that I can buy an use today without having to work around bugs or the cruft an entire Windows OS or have to wait for "the next upgrade".
Extra points to someone who gets it to work nicely with DirecTV and/or DISH Network.
Back in those days it was Apple/Motorola slamming the first gen Pentium II versus their first gen Power PC 750 "G3".
The G3 in 233 and 266 MHz flavors was faster than the PII in its 233 and 266 MHz flavors. But eventually the PII was shipping at 450 MHz while Motorola was still churning out 350 MHz G3s. Apple slipped behind and had to use other tactics (more cache, wider busses, etc) to try to compete.
Today Intel has the Pentium M, more specifically, the second generation Pentium M, available with dual cores. Sure looks a lot better than the vaporware that Motorola/Freescale is advertising, or the big and hot IBM PowerPC 970 "G5" or the in-order (poor for multitasking) game console versions of the G5.
I think Apple made the right move, I just wish Intel had a better naming system for their CPUs.
The simpli.biz site seems to be blank, you're right. I can access my server and the simpli control panels just fine though, so it must only be their site that's fubar.
10for10 looks fine though:
http://10for10.com/about.php
Worst experience was with a company that was so bad it was eventually bought out by Verio. Billing was totally messed up, my account on a shared server never worked quite right, and my leased/dedicated server had the most botched install of SuSE I've ever seen.
Best experience has been with 10for10.com / Simpli.biz. Small mom-and-pop type business yet they're located in the silicon valley with their equipment in one of the best datacenters on the west coast. Doesn't get any better than that!
According to Netcraft the machine is running Apache 1.3.33 on what is probably Mac OS X 10.3.
Regarding classic mac os and WebStar, I have used versions 1.0 thru 3.0 on Macs and Mac clones in my high school on Mac OS 7.6 thru 9.1. Prior to WebStar we used MacHTTPd and even NSCA HTTPd on a NeXTstation.
What you said about a modal dialog box locking the system is somewhat true, however it generally is triggered by other applications. There were only a few very early versions of WebStar that would actually freeze themselves with their own dialog boxes. More common was a modal dialog box from another application that did the deed. On our servers (Mac IIci, Mac Quadra 605, PowerComputing Mac clone) we ran WebStar (WWW), Rumpus (FTP), Eudora Internet Mail Server (POP+SMTP), QuickDNSpro (DNS), FileMakerPro (DB), Lasso (FileMaker web CGi interface), Timbuktu (sort of like VNC), and a variety of scripts for log analysis and web searching. Over the first year we had a couple freeze-ups of the server, so we dove into the software to see what we could do. Turns out that simply updating the apps to their latest patch/bugfix release solved most of the problems. Also Mac OS 8.6 and newer were based on an updated kernel with updated threading support and solved even more issues. (Of course by the time 8.6 shipped we were already trying out FreeBSD and Mac OS X) For insurance we bought a watchdog dongle that plugged into the ADB (apple desktop bus -- keyboard/mouse) port and would force a restart if the software ever halted. In the 2 years after our overhaul I think we had one crash and the dongle successfully rebooted the server in a matter of minutes.
Maybe we were lucky, or maybe we just took the time to read the manuals to avoid the gotchas. I have no regrets in using Classic Mac OS as a server. Today I like Mac OS X for the desktop, but it's Solaris and FreeBSD that I run on my servers.
According to Netcraft, the site is running:
Apache/1.3.33 (Darwin) mod_jk/1.2.6 DAV/1.0.3 mod_ssl/2.8.24 OpenSSL/0.9.7i PHP/4.3.11
That exact version string seems to suggest Mac OS X 10.3. Who knows what hardware it's running on, especially in a high school. I've seen 10.3 running on an original tray-load 1998 CRT iMac G3 -- 233 MHz, 64 MB, it isn't pretty. Slow as XP on an original Pentium. You pretty much need a blue&white G3 minitower or a slot-load 2000 CRT iMac G3 (350+MHz) to run Mac OS X 10.3/10.4 with decent performance. Versions 10.0 - 10.2 were even slower.
Why the server actually crashed is a good question for the Apache and Darwin/OSX gurus.
BTW, I'm not aware of any Apple subsidies for schools. Sometimes Apple will make low bid, but nothing too different from what Dell does. I *wish* Apple subsidized their hardware, then maybe my high school and college would have had semi-modern machines rather than their 10-year-old Macs and 5-year-old PCs.
100,000 personnel over to Firefox and Thunderbird (70,000 and 45,000 respectively)
:)
So of the 100K people, 70K of them are swtiching to Firefox and 45K are switching to Thunderbird...
...so nobody will be using both?
It seems like the reliability of the original PowerBook G4 (the titanium "TiBook") varies greatly. Some people have had nothing but trouble, others have beaten on theirs for the past 5 years without any problems. You seem to be one of the luckier ones.
The second generation PowerBook G4 (the aluminum "AlBook") seems to be pretty sturdy. WAY better hinge. Much heavier duty. Doesn't show scratches. Etc.
I heard so many great things about the iMac (Flavored ones) and when I got one: I was REALLY disappointed. It kept locking up, had to reboot often, etc.... In all due honesty, I was using a lot of MS software on it - yes, I'm paranoid too about that - i.e. MS writing shit for Mac.
Which family of flavored CRT iMacs, those with tray-load CD-ROM (266 and 333 MHz G3, 66 MHz FSB, RagePro) or those with slot-load CD-RW/DVD-ROM (350 - 700 MHz G3, 100 MHz FSB, Rage128)? Which version(s) of Mac OS?
The original tray-load models had some firmware-related stability issues. I think it was the third or maybe even the fourth revision of the firmware that finally fixed the last of the bugs, especially the really pesky USB related bugs. Flashing the firmware wasn't difficult, but involved some strange steps including holding down the NMI button until beeps were heard, etc. Thankfully the documentation was very easy to follow. The slot-load models had one or two firmware updates, the later of which was required for newer versions of Mac OS X.
The iMac original came out in the days of Mac OS 8.1, which was an OK release of the Classic Mac OS. Most of the ickyness of the System 7.5 days and the slowness of the original 8.0 were corrected. 8.5 had some problems again, but 8.6 and 8.6.1 fixed that. Ditto for 9.0, its problems were solved by 9.1. The last release was 9.2.2. I personally haven't used anything newer than 9.1 before I moved to OS X. See the thing is, Apple did release major updates to the OS with lots of bug fixes... but it still was Classic Mac OS. Roughty translated, that means a fine OS for doing one task at a time. Quake 3 and FAKK2 even ran ok on the slot-load iMac. Photoshop and iMovie were a pleasure to use on 400+ MHz models. You mentioned Microsoft software, I have to admit that Mac version of Office 98 was a fine peice of Mac software. Office 2001 was a little slower, but 98 ran great on even the 333 MHz models.
Doing more than one or two things at a time with the Classic (pre-OS X) Mac OS was a recipe for disaster, however. **Especially** when one of those tasks was running a web browser. Netscape 4.x was a buggy mess and without proper memory protection, liked to kill the OS. (Mac OS 8.6 and later had limited memory protection and it was possible to kill ("force-quit") and restart applications without rebooting, but this was still a pain). Mac versions of Internet Explorer were, in my opinion, just as awful as anything Netscape ever put out, maybe even worse. The poor theading support and poor networking of Classic Mac OS didn't help the situation any.
To sum this up, I have used many Macs from that era for many tasks, including Apple/Claris/AppleWorks, MS Office, Photoshop, WebStar (web serving), Rumpus (FTP serving), FileMaker (database client and server) and have been generally pleased. However, as a web surfing machine, it sucked... it sucked badly.
On the bright side, I still use several 500 MHz slot-load iMacs in a variety of fruity flavors for web surfing at home and work. With 384mb ram, Mac OS 10.3.9 and 10.4.x, they run Safari, Camino, and Firefox just great, especially when running G3-optimized builds of Camino and Firefox. I have not yet tried any of the nightly builds of Safari/Webkit. I now prefer Mac OS X as a web surfing platform. Funny how things change.
You'd be certifiably crazy to think that a Windows server would be as stable or as reliable as an AS/400 server. AS/400 (iSeries) systems are almost as hardcore as they come, and much less expensive than S/390 (zSeries) or Tandem->Compaq->HP NonStop Himalaya.
However, if you have no AS/400 admins in house, but you have plenty of Windows Server gurus, well, then I think you would be better off with Windows. I've seen the same situation with Linux. Company decides to switch servers to Linux but the admins only know how to speak Windows, disaster ensues.
Doesn't he mean Windows Explorer rather then Internet Explorer?
The Windows file manager is the same thing as Internet Explorer, and Control Panel for that matter. Don't belive me? Change the path sometime... load up "http://www.google.com", then change the address to "C:\" or "Control Panel". Or conversely, open the control panel from the Start menu, then change the address from "Control Panel" to your URL of choice.
This kind of works with the file manager in IRIX 6.3+, although it's HTML engine is very outdated. Open up any file manager window and change the path to a URL, such as "http://www.google.com"! Neat stuff back in 1996...
This workaround broke thumnail view for me in explorer, but it's no big deal, thumbnail view looks pretty but it slows down explorer. At least you have a choice -- being r00ted by some new worm or lose one little eyecandy feature.
And break a whole bunch of other stuff in the process!
Small price to pay for security. I'd rather give up thumbnails (they slow down explorer anyway) and avoid being r00ted by the latest internet worm.
One of the great mysteries of the universe: who at Sun though it was a good idea to put the caps lock key below the caps lock key?
What this poster is asking is "why did sun swap the location of the capslock and control keys?".
NeXT did the same thing on their keyboards and I've seen it on other UNIX systems as well. I think it's because UNIX users tend to use CTRL a lot more than they use CAPS-LOCK. I actually prefer the "Sun" layout as it's easier for me to hit the CTRL key in that location, and I rarely accidently hit CAPS-LOCK that way.
FWIW: Sun sells two versions of they USA keyboard.... one with the "UNIX" layout and one with the more common "PC" layout.
I guess this means the RIAA suits will have to settle for 40% smaller mansions and 40% smaller pools.
This will eventually trickle down to the artists themselves, many of whom will have to settle for 40% less jewerly and 40% fewer Maybachs.
I thought Apple had something of a resurgence in the last couple years, but I don't see much indication of that.
Apple's profits are at record highs and their sales are way up. Apple is growing and expanding. **BUT** the rest of the computer industry is growing faster. As a result, Apple's marketshare continues to drop.
It depeonds on what sector of the business market you're talking about. People with heavier CPU usage had a variety of UNIX workstation to choose from (Sun, Apollo, AT&T, SGI) as well as the DEC MicroVAX workstation for VMS. Apple tried their hand at a business PC with the Apple /// (man what a sad story of design-by-management). There were also several cheap machines that ran CP/M. But for the most part the business world was dominated by Big Iron driving terminals. IBM AS/400, IBM S/360 and S/390, Data General Nova/Eclipse, DEC VAX, and many others. There's a reason why we have termainl standards such as VT100, tn3270, and tn5250!
I was recently introduced to RISC OS on a Castle Iyonix. Pretty neat for a new machine running an OS with some history. There's also something geeky-cool about running an ARM / Xscale CPU on the desktop.
The PET never had more marketshare than the TRS-80, in fact it had at most about a quarter of the of the TRS-80's marketshare. You're misreading those (crappy) graphs. The TRS-80 was the best selling computer in 1980.
Yes but which version of HDMI there are currently 1.0 (released Dec 2002) and 1.1 (released May 2004). Second of all I was of the understanding you couldn't get true 1080i with component inputs. HDMI is "supposed" to be backward compliant with DVI at least those using the CEA-861 profile for DTVs. I suppose all you need, if you have a DVI input which I immagine you would if its a 3 year old rear projection HDTV, is a HDMI to DVI cable. Correct me if I am wrong, you could spend all day reading specifications and instructions and still not know what the hell is going on. I can only immagine how pissed regular consumers will be when they find their 3 grand tv doesn't play movies.
HDMI and DVI are essentially the same when it comes to normal computer-style digital video, you can easily buy cheap HDMI DVI adapters. But HDMI generally adds HDCP encyrption/copy protection (there's also DVI+DHCP which is essentially the same as HDMI+HDCP), which is what will be needed for 720p and 1080i in digital form from BluRay and HDDVD.
My TV has a DVI input as well as four sets of component inputs. The DVI input does not support HDCP. Supposedly if I were to connect a BluRay or HDDVD player to my TV's DVI via a HDMI adapter the TV would not understand the encrypted HD signal and the player would have to revert to a non-encrypted standard def 480p signal instead. These HD players will have component, but only for standard def (current DVD style) 480p.
Component does indeed support 1080i, in fact that's the only way to currently view 1080i with the new XBOX 360 as there currently is no DVI or HDMI cable for it... just composite, svideo, and component. I have seen from experience that 1080i over component does require three good matched cables to get a crisp picture. I'm guessing the bandwidth for that analog signal is pushing the limits of RCA cables.
From what I gather, neither BluRay nor HDDVD will suport full HD resolution via component video, instead consumers will have to use HDMI for its HDCP copy protection.
Well, this is fine if I had a new TV... but instead I have a beautiful 3 year old rear projection HDTV that uses analog component inputs. This is currently connected to a HD DirecTV reciever and my DVD player. The DVD player is of course 480p but I do get as high as 1080i with some of the DirecTV channels.
So now what am I going to do when BluRay or HDDVD comes out and I want to view the full resolution siginal? What are the odds Sony will sell me new electronics to add HDCP digital to my TV? Will I have to use an illegal device to convert the digital stream to component for my TV?