The iBook is amazingly sturdy and the size is just right. If it seems "large and bulky" to you, remember that a keyboard is cumbersome to use if it's too small. Also, the price of a laptop goes up as the size goes down. There's a sweet spot where you can get a relatively small laptop for a relatively low price, and the iBook is right there.
You should also remember that all Apple hardware is built to fit the OS, not the other way around. That is, they designed the user interface FIRST, then they built hardware to run it. Compare this to Wintel/Lintel laptops, where the hardware is given and the OS has to handle all the idiosyncracies. The result is less than pleasing.
It's a great compliment to the community that people can ask a question assuming there will be an informed, helpful response. The knee-jerk "google it" reaction that is so common these days is tearing apart this vital facet of the community.
Still, it is prudent to do your Google homework before posting to any online forum. This keeps the signal-to-noise ratio up and makes people feel it's worth to come back to the site later.
Actually, the knee-jerk RTFM/RTFGoogle answers you're witnessing are all about community! More specifically, about teaching people how to behave here at Ask Slashdot. Saying "search Google before posting to Ask Slashdot" is very much like saying "don't shout in the library".
MEEP! Wrong! Phoenix Tech was first to license their reverse-engineered BIOS, opening up the PC-clone market.
http://oufcnt5.open.ac.uk/~richard_lawton/Sectio n% 206%20Notes.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulp it/pulpit19990930. html
To address the point in your post, Microsoft has a huge penetration in the Office market and no amount of XML fidgetry is going to kick them out. Rather, they'll love it if a small sub-industry grows up around the MS Office XML standard. Then they will release the Office Document XML standard v1.1, then 1.2, then 2.0 and so on, releasing that information only to "trusted partners". No chance the StarOffice team is going to see the next version before it hits the market.
THAT's what you learn if you look at history. (Which you apparently didn't do. Duh. You lose...)
--Bud
Re:How to totally screw up Win2k in less than 1 mi
on
Gnarly Error Messages
·
· Score: 2
Heh, the first BeBox had dual CPUs, and a common demo was to run some processor-intensive task, open the CPU load monitor application and disable one processor. It was actually quite impressive, seeing the system moving processes from one processor to another...
And then, you could of course disable both processors... instant freeze!
Does anyone know if the encryption for Bluetooth is as braindamaged as some of the others out there at the moment, or if it's actually something halfway decent?
Yes. It's decent. They've written a white paper about it. And while I'm on the subject, Extremetech did a very good Bluetooth overview some time ago. Read it.
The reason is that it costs the cell phone company the same amount of money whether you call someone or recieve a call. It uses the same bandwidth after all.
Well, yes, and water usually runs downhill.
Presumably the *caller* has something to say and is willing to pay for it. That's how it works in all other media and everywhere else except for phones in the US. The idea that the recipient pays for the call is very backwards. You ain't gonna get no wireless culture in the US until people learn to pay for the bandwidth they use.
Oh my, has Apple's Switch Campaign finally got to Steve Jobs himself? I heard that his pay was lousy, like 1USD/year, but recently he got a 40M USD bonus so that should have taken care of his itch to switch. So he's now top monkey at Microsoft, right? I heard they needed someone to keep Ballmer company.
"My name is Steve Jobs, and I run a fruit company..."
At one desk, users can move a wireless mouse's pointer from the screen of one computer to the screen of a laptop, with no wire or wireless connection between the computers themselves.
I like that. If there's no wired or wireless connection between those computers, then there are no electrons or radio waves involved, meaning that this could be faster than light. Just think of the applications!
[...] semicircular 6-foot screen that wraps around in front of the user. The screen technology is called D# ("D Sharp").
Nonononono. Why did they have to choose the letter D, of all letters. Why not B#, pronounced "Be sharp" . Or A# as in "that's A# screen". Or C#, but that's already taken. Y#? iSharp?
The same old zombie discussion "Apple is going to switch to x86" pops up again. Get over it folks. I know that half of you are running Aqua themes on your KDE/Gnome desktops and need to replace your shorted out keyboards every two weeks because of excessive drooling over Apple hardware and software, but hey, really, Mac OS X is NOT going to run on commodity Intel hardware within our lifetime. That would be suicide for Apple. OK?
... you will justify it by looking at all problems as if they were nails. I'm willing to bet big money that the clinic doesn't really need "color PDAs".
If you merely need textual and numeric information, a simple Palm will be enough, as you can fit hundreds of patients, their medication, their billing history and whatnot into the standard 8MB. The information you need is probably not time critical up to the split second, it's more like up to ten minutes or so. You get the same benefits at a fraction of the price.
If you need graphical information and it absolutely HAS to be accurate up to the split second (like in the emergency areas of a clinic), you'd better get stationary computers instead. You don't want your PDA to run out of batteries when your patient is flat out in the ER room.
Or you can just get "webpads" or "tablet computers" instead of PDAs. It's not much fun to look at 4000x4000 pixel X-ray shots on a 200x200 screen... Shop around, there are lots of different models around, some running Linux and some Windows CE. They all come with web browsers, and they all either have WLAN built in or take PCMCIA cards.
But don't get color PDAs just because they would be cool. That's not cool.
Sorry, this doesn't make sense. If you generally stand FOR open values and standards and AGAINST corporate secrecy, it's definitely not hypocritical to applaud Apple/OSX while bashing Microsoft/.Net. Your "fun experiment" merely shows what you'll get if you replace a couple of words in piece of text.
Bluetooth is also a channel-hog; it uses a _lot_ of the available channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum, and jumps around between them like nothing else. Good luck trying to run bluetooth and 802.11b in the same room.
If you were speaking out of your own experience, you would know that BT and WLAN can coexist fairly peacefully. The BT protocol is more robust compared to WLAN, but WLAN uses 10 times more power.
The only thing to watch out for is heavy BT traffic close to a WLAN base station, but that's about it.
If you watch a person's behavior when they shoot up smack, it's the same as when they watch TV. The eyes gloss over, the body slumps, the brain goes into an alpha state, etc. Look at how a person watches TV. What's channel surfing? It's looking for something to lull the viewer into a trance. [...] The norm is to get off work and look through the channels for something to dullen the senses, just like a closet drunk looking in various hiding places around the house for a bottle stashed away.
If this is your way of describing TV-watching, no wonder people get defensive.
You're right and you're wrong. Many people watch TV to relax, to not have to think for a while. TV makes it easy to relax because it controls time sequencing for you. If you read a book, you can stop and think; TV doesn't give you this freedom. It's like getting on a rollercoaster, you're stuck for a certain amount of time during which you don't have to think or analyze anything, just absorb the experience. You can analyze it when you have both feet back on the ground again.
Of course, you can relax in many ways. Some people read magazines or books, others paint fine art, some drink a coupla beers after work, others drive motor bikes at 200kmph, others work out at the gym -- some oddballs even play violent computer games all night long (not that I'm one of them, nossir, not at all).
Do I really think I'm better than you for not owning a TV? No.
Oh, wake up! In your post you expressed deep pity and contempt for the people who choose to give up their freedom of mind in order to pass the time. While you yourself , I'm sure, are only taking occasional breaks from the monotony of daily work to let your mind wander freely on the high paths of Philosophy. Right?
For the record, I don't own a TV and I don't intend to get one either. This is simply because I can't handle the time sequencing. My mind wants to stop and reflect on things, but it can't, and I get nauseatic after a while and go and do something else.
See, there's no need to seek out fellow Windows users when practically anybody can give 10 friends a call and 9 of them will have some Windows experience. C'mon chrisd, do try harder next time.
Oh, come on Zico! You are assuming that Mac users cluster together for TECHNICAL support, like Windows users do.
It's just amazing to see how much freezes and crashes and almost-working peripherals Windows people are willing to endure. Eventually, you learn how to avoid specific problems. You don't burn CD's after you've used the printer, for example. This is the kind of experience of Windows people typically will have. They also know how to reinstall drivers, and sometimes even WHAT to reinstall.
Windows can fsck itself up in an incredible number of ways, and "some" Windows experience will not get you anywhere. Any of your friends is just likely to spend several hours sweating over the computer and then announce the problem impossible to solve and requiring a reinstall of Windows. As if that would solve anything permanently.
Mac users meet for MORAL support. When 95% of the world looks wryly at you because you've got the wrong brand of shoes... errr, a friendly and working computer, you need someone to say: hey, you made a smart choice.
I couldn't agree more! Carmageddon II in "Catch the Fox" mode is loads of fun. But it requires a CD per player, IIRC.
Movement is difficult in Carmageddon: you can't just flick around 360 degrees by moving the mouse half an inch. The physics model works like in real life, including weight and momentum, so you can't jump around corners by turning in the air or run faster by some clever zig-zagging. In order to actually damage your opponents, you must make physical contact, so camping is impossible. Powerups are randomized, and although they appear in the same places, you never know what you get from game to game. And cars are randomized (optionally) so years of experience driving the Eagle doesn't necessarily mean you're good with the Dumpster.
All this means that the playing field is even. Newbies can compete quite evenly with experienced players, which is not the case in first person shooters.
About 10 people before you have mentioned this. And each time, someone has stated the blinding obvious fact that a flat-panel iMac would not use expensive laptop internals. Not to mention things like form factor. ... Also, iMacs do provide better performace than iBooks.
Mr. Know-it-all, you need to look farther than numbers.
We're talking Apple here. Look is everything and industrial design rules. They're likely to put laptop innards into the monitor stand, for Dog's sake! Besides, the iBook is fairly thick and not very crammed inside, and the motherboard is only slightly smaller than the mobo in an iMac. Everyone and their mother are fully aware of the fact that the iBook and the iMac are not completely equal, given facts like that the iMac doesn't need to conserve power, and can take a larger hard disk (3.5" vs. 2.5" in the iBook). The iBook will always be slightly more expensive than a comparable iMac.
The crucial thing here is that the price difference between the iMac and the iBook is mostly due to the crisp-n-juicy LCD screen, and if Apple goes and eliminates that, they'll have to increase the iMac's price another $100 or so, and suddenly more people will feel compelled to buy the portable iWossname instead of the desktop iWossname... ergo, if an LCD iMac is introduced, it will lose sales to the iBook. Which is what my original point was about anyway.
I say, banish the 'Desktop'! It confuses users. Teach the file tree! Standardize the file tree!
The Desktop is dead! Long live the Desktop!
No. This all boils down to creating a naming convention and sticking to it. It doesn't mean that the Desktop == SQRT(all evil). Instead, it has to do with consistency.
For a long time now, Apple has provided a consistent Desktop-based computing experience, and I'm happy to see that the tradition lives on in OS X. The desktop in OS X is a joy to use, as is the one in OS 9. Formerly, the Desktop was the root of your computer experience. You could always start from a clean slate, so to speak. Removable media, printers, PCMCIA cards, everything would show up on the desktop. In OS X, the OS provides an overlaid sheet of OS9-ishness, thick enough to stand on and rely on. But you can take the Terminal and go below the surface into another world of consistency, just as you can walk down into the cellar and see tubing, plumbing, power cables and everything else that you need in order to live your warm and cosy life up one the first floor. There are two different concepts, but they're internally consistent and don't conflict with each other.
The everything-is-a-file naming convention is what got me hooked on Unix in the first place, although the Unix file tree is way too complex and nonstandardized. Where do I install my TrueType fonts in Linux, for instance?
This is also why KDE and Gnome are simply overglorified window managers. I never dare use ~/.Desktop. Indeed, the first thing I do when I set up my work environment is remove the desktop icons. Why? Because it doesn't work as I expect it to. Pop in a floppy disk and... why isn't it automounted and symlinked onto the desktop?
Windows is even worse. If I open "My Computer" from the Desktop, I'll find C: there. However, if I open the folder containing My Desktop, on C:, why isn't "My Computer" there? "My Documents" should by the way be c:\MyDocuments. But no, it's really c:\windows\profiles\me\MyDocuments, or was it c:\DocumentsAndFolders\me\MyDocuments or wherever? Argh! Help! Take me out of here!
Don't have time to rant anymore, but my point is that the Desktop metaphor is not bad, as long as it's consistent! Any metaphor will do, as long as it's consistent.
Given the additional cost of an LCD screen, a flat-panel iMac would cost about the same as an iBook. And performance-wise they're almost the same. I don't see much of a market for a flat-panel iMac as long as it doesn't provide better performance than the iBook.
You should read up on this new technology that we call "search engines". They're really nice. Here's a short tutorial:
Open www.google.com
Keywords like "web", "gimp" and "scripting" would seem appropriate, wouldn't they?
And then you press enter.
And you will get approx. 17800 results, listing at least two printed books. Now wasn't that easy and nice? And faster than submitting that question to Slashdot too!
Just my $0.02, and I even added the sarcasm for FREE!:)
Therefore if, for example, I want to select the paragraph I am currently editing, all I have to do is press Control-Down (end of paragraph), Shift-Control-Up (Select to top of current paragraph), and it's done. Elapsed time, about a tenth of a second. A couple more keystrokes and I can cut or delete the paragraph, add formatting (B/U/I, justification, etc.), and so on. Compare that to the time it takes to lay your hand on the mouse, move the pointer to one end of the paragraph, click and drag to sweep out the paragraph by eye. No contest.
Reading through the lines of your post, it's apparent that:
the OS you're using doesn't invite you to use the mouse, so you refrain from using that input method and have started disdaining it
you have memorized several dozens of shortcuts for a certain editor widget and need to justify it to yourself and others
using higher-level parts of your brain on doing low-abstraction-level things makes you think you're working harder and faster
Maybe you should start using another platform, or another editor widget? Mousing skills are always mousing skills, but adapting to one editor widget will CRIPPLE your productivity in other editors.
Besides, no-one is REALLY going to believe that you can do a control-down + shift-control-up in one tenth of a second. But to be fair, no-one can triple-click a credit-card sized target in that time either.
2. Microsoft chooses to spend money on leveraging their monopoly in order to expand, instead of making software of better quality.
3. Microsoft sees people are getting irritated. Uh-oh. Gotta do something.
4. Microsoft says: "Microsoft good! Virus programmers bad!" Microsoft proposes legislation against computer virii.
5. Taxpayers pay through the nose for the unsuccessful hunting down of virus programmers, many of which live in Taiwan anyway. Microsoft doesn't pay a cent.
6. Virii still exploit the still not patched security holes in Microsoft software.
I agree to this. In normal usage Apple's laptops will easily do over 3 hours on a fresh battery, 4h is attainable with a little effort, but in order to reach 5h you have to go to great lengths to conserve batteries.
On my new iBook (with OS X 10.1), 3:20 seems to be a good estimate after I've fired up the mailer, a browser and a text editor and started working. If you want to do a little code testing and debugging, you're down to just under 3 hours.
As Graymalkin says, the G3-series PowerBooks can take a second battery, bringing the theoretical total up to 10 hours. In essence, it will easily last a whole working day. On the downside, the G3 PowerBooks are quite bulky. But hey, you can't get everything.:-) At least the newer models have built-in WLAN antennae.
I performed the 600/350 modification to my iBook three weeks ago and IT DID NOT SUCCEED. When I had assembled the iBook again it wouldn't boot up. So I had to open the case again and move the resistors back. Luckily it works again.:-) Sturdy little bastard... Considering the amount of time I spent on planning and double-checking the mods, I can only assume that there are errors on the web page. I did the mods by hand, soldering very carefully and checking the result with a multimeter afterwards.
Another note: It's impossible to open the case without making ugly marks. You need at least three hands and several thin but nonflexible steel blades. Having done it twice (once for modding and once for demodding), I'm considering opening it once more in order to file down the ugly edges -- and repaint the inside in ultramarine blue.:-)
The only positive thing is that I now know how to replace the optical drive and hard disk. 10GB doesn't really cut it nowadays... I would really like one of those 48GB drives.
That's my 0.02 euro. And... if someone actually succeeds in performing the 600/350 mod, please let me know exactly what resistors you moved.:) Pleeeease!
There are brand new markets out there just ready to be exploited!
Show me one.
There are currently NO brand new markets in that industry, and if the RIAA gets it's way there will not be any. They are busy protecting their old market.
My take on this is that the RIAA is going to use their weight to form this "brand new market" to their liking. So we'll end up with a brand new market that's suspiciously like the good ole market: pay through your nose for music that you can't copy without a reduction in quality.
Slashdot Mirror
The iBook is amazingly sturdy and the size is just right. If it seems "large and bulky" to you, remember that a keyboard is cumbersome to use if it's too small. Also, the price of a laptop goes up as the size goes down. There's a sweet spot where you can get a relatively small laptop for a relatively low price, and the iBook is right there.
You should also remember that all Apple hardware is built to fit the OS, not the other way around. That is, they designed the user interface FIRST, then they built hardware to run it. Compare this to Wintel/Lintel laptops, where the hardware is given and the OS has to handle all the idiosyncracies. The result is less than pleasing.
--Bud
It's a great compliment to the community that people can ask a question assuming there will be an informed, helpful response. The knee-jerk "google it" reaction that is so common these days is tearing apart this vital facet of the community.
Still, it is prudent to do your Google homework before posting to any online forum. This keeps the signal-to-noise ratio up and makes people feel it's worth to come back to the site later.
Actually, the knee-jerk RTFM/RTFGoogle answers you're witnessing are all about community! More specifically, about teaching people how to behave here at Ask Slashdot. Saying "search Google before posting to Ask Slashdot" is very much like saying "don't shout in the library".
--Bud
MEEP! Wrong! Phoenix Tech was first to license their reverse-engineered BIOS, opening up the PC-clone market.
o n% 206%20Notes.htmlp it/pulpit19990930. html
http://oufcnt5.open.ac.uk/~richard_lawton/Secti
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pul
To address the point in your post, Microsoft has a huge penetration in the Office market and no amount of XML fidgetry is going to kick them out. Rather, they'll love it if a small sub-industry grows up around the MS Office XML standard. Then they will release the Office Document XML standard v1.1, then 1.2, then 2.0 and so on, releasing that information only to "trusted partners". No chance the StarOffice team is going to see the next version before it hits the market.
THAT's what you learn if you look at history. (Which you apparently didn't do. Duh. You lose...)
--Bud
Heh, the first BeBox had dual CPUs, and a common demo was to run some processor-intensive task, open the CPU load monitor application and disable one processor. It was actually quite impressive, seeing the system moving processes from one processor to another...
And then, you could of course disable both processors... instant freeze!
--Bud
Does anyone know if the encryption for Bluetooth is as braindamaged as some of the others out there at the moment, or if it's actually something halfway decent?
Yes. It's decent. They've written a white paper about it. And while I'm on the subject, Extremetech did a very good Bluetooth overview some time ago. Read it.
--Bud
The reason is that it costs the cell phone company the same amount of money whether you call someone or recieve a call. It uses the same bandwidth after all.
Well, yes, and water usually runs downhill.
Presumably the *caller* has something to say and is willing to pay for it. That's how it works in all other media and everywhere else except for phones in the US. The idea that the recipient pays for the call is very backwards. You ain't gonna get no wireless culture in the US until people learn to pay for the bandwidth they use.
--Bud
Oh my, has Apple's Switch Campaign finally got to Steve Jobs himself? I heard that his pay was lousy, like 1USD/year, but recently he got a 40M USD bonus so that should have taken care of his itch to switch. So he's now top monkey at Microsoft, right? I heard they needed someone to keep Ballmer company.
"My name is Steve Jobs, and I run a fruit company..."
*grin* *duck* *run*
I like that. If there's no wired or wireless connection between those computers, then there are no electrons or radio waves involved, meaning that this could be faster than light. Just think of the applications!
[...] semicircular 6-foot screen that wraps around in front of the user. The screen technology is called D# ("D Sharp").
Nonononono. Why did they have to choose the letter D, of all letters. Why not B#, pronounced "Be sharp" . Or A# as in "that's A# screen". Or C#, but that's already taken. Y#? iSharp?
Sheesh. --Bud
Besides, it seems Steve was misquoted. Sorry.
--Bud
... you will justify it by looking at all problems as if they were nails. I'm willing to bet big money that the clinic doesn't really need "color PDAs".
If you merely need textual and numeric information, a simple Palm will be enough, as you can fit hundreds of patients, their medication, their billing history and whatnot into the standard 8MB. The information you need is probably not time critical up to the split second, it's more like up to ten minutes or so. You get the same benefits at a fraction of the price.
If you need graphical information and it absolutely HAS to be accurate up to the split second (like in the emergency areas of a clinic), you'd better get stationary computers instead. You don't want your PDA to run out of batteries when your patient is flat out in the ER room.
Or you can just get "webpads" or "tablet computers" instead of PDAs. It's not much fun to look at 4000x4000 pixel X-ray shots on a 200x200 screen... Shop around, there are lots of different models around, some running Linux and some Windows CE. They all come with web browsers, and they all either have WLAN built in or take PCMCIA cards.
But don't get color PDAs just because they would be cool. That's not cool.
Sorry, this doesn't make sense. If you generally stand FOR open values and standards and AGAINST corporate secrecy, it's definitely not hypocritical to applaud Apple/OSX while bashing Microsoft/.Net. Your "fun experiment" merely shows what you'll get if you replace a couple of words in piece of text.
--Bud
This is just what Linux needs to succeed on the desktop! So simple, even your grandma could use it!
I think these guys should start a company aiming to provide KVim as an ASP solution for all the enterprises out there, then go IPO and make a fortune.
Now could you please XEmacs21 to PalmOS, please?
--Bud
If you were speaking out of your own experience, you would know that BT and WLAN can coexist fairly peacefully. The BT protocol is more robust compared to WLAN, but WLAN uses 10 times more power.
The only thing to watch out for is heavy BT traffic close to a WLAN base station, but that's about it.
--Bud
If this is your way of describing TV-watching, no wonder people get defensive.
You're right and you're wrong. Many people watch TV to relax, to not have to think for a while. TV makes it easy to relax because it controls time sequencing for you. If you read a book, you can stop and think; TV doesn't give you this freedom. It's like getting on a rollercoaster, you're stuck for a certain amount of time during which you don't have to think or analyze anything, just absorb the experience. You can analyze it when you have both feet back on the ground again.
Of course, you can relax in many ways. Some people read magazines or books, others paint fine art, some drink a coupla beers after work, others drive motor bikes at 200kmph, others work out at the gym -- some oddballs even play violent computer games all night long (not that I'm one of them, nossir, not at all).
Do I really think I'm better than you for not owning a TV? No.
Oh, wake up! In your post you expressed deep pity and contempt for the people who choose to give up their freedom of mind in order to pass the time. While you yourself , I'm sure, are only taking occasional breaks from the monotony of daily work to let your mind wander freely on the high paths of Philosophy. Right?
For the record, I don't own a TV and I don't intend to get one either. This is simply because I can't handle the time sequencing. My mind wants to stop and reflect on things, but it can't, and I get nauseatic after a while and go and do something else.
--Bud
Oh, come on Zico! You are assuming that Mac users cluster together for TECHNICAL support, like Windows users do.
It's just amazing to see how much freezes and crashes and almost-working peripherals Windows people are willing to endure. Eventually, you learn how to avoid specific problems. You don't burn CD's after you've used the printer, for example. This is the kind of experience of Windows people typically will have. They also know how to reinstall drivers, and sometimes even WHAT to reinstall.
Windows can fsck itself up in an incredible number of ways, and "some" Windows experience will not get you anywhere. Any of your friends is just likely to spend several hours sweating over the computer and then announce the problem impossible to solve and requiring a reinstall of Windows. As if that would solve anything permanently.
Mac users meet for MORAL support. When 95% of the world looks wryly at you because you've got the wrong brand of shoes... errr, a friendly and working computer, you need someone to say: hey, you made a smart choice.
--Bud
I couldn't agree more! Carmageddon II in "Catch the Fox" mode is loads of fun. But it requires a CD per player, IIRC.
Movement is difficult in Carmageddon: you can't just flick around 360 degrees by moving the mouse half an inch. The physics model works like in real life, including weight and momentum, so you can't jump around corners by turning in the air or run faster by some clever zig-zagging. In order to actually damage your opponents, you must make physical contact, so camping is impossible. Powerups are randomized, and although they appear in the same places, you never know what you get from game to game. And cars are randomized (optionally) so years of experience driving the Eagle doesn't necessarily mean you're good with the Dumpster.
All this means that the playing field is even. Newbies can compete quite evenly with experienced players, which is not the case in first person shooters.
--Bud
...
Also, iMacs do provide better performace than iBooks.
Mr. Know-it-all, you need to look farther than numbers.
We're talking Apple here. Look is everything and industrial design rules. They're likely to put laptop innards into the monitor stand, for Dog's sake! Besides, the iBook is fairly thick and not very crammed inside, and the motherboard is only slightly smaller than the mobo in an iMac. Everyone and their mother are fully aware of the fact that the iBook and the iMac are not completely equal, given facts like that the iMac doesn't need to conserve power, and can take a larger hard disk (3.5" vs. 2.5" in the iBook). The iBook will always be slightly more expensive than a comparable iMac.
The crucial thing here is that the price difference between the iMac and the iBook is mostly due to the crisp-n-juicy LCD screen, and if Apple goes and eliminates that, they'll have to increase the iMac's price another $100 or so, and suddenly more people will feel compelled to buy the portable iWossname instead of the desktop iWossname... ergo, if an LCD iMac is introduced, it will lose sales to the iBook. Which is what my original point was about anyway.
Thanks, and have a nice Christmas.
--Bud
The Desktop is dead! Long live the Desktop!
No. This all boils down to creating a naming convention and sticking to it. It doesn't mean that the Desktop == SQRT(all evil). Instead, it has to do with consistency.
For a long time now, Apple has provided a consistent Desktop-based computing experience, and I'm happy to see that the tradition lives on in OS X. The desktop in OS X is a joy to use, as is the one in OS 9. Formerly, the Desktop was the root of your computer experience. You could always start from a clean slate, so to speak. Removable media, printers, PCMCIA cards, everything would show up on the desktop. In OS X, the OS provides an overlaid sheet of OS9-ishness, thick enough to stand on and rely on. But you can take the Terminal and go below the surface into another world of consistency, just as you can walk down into the cellar and see tubing, plumbing, power cables and everything else that you need in order to live your warm and cosy life up one the first floor. There are two different concepts, but they're internally consistent and don't conflict with each other.
The everything-is-a-file naming convention is what got me hooked on Unix in the first place, although the Unix file tree is way too complex and nonstandardized. Where do I install my TrueType fonts in Linux, for instance?
This is also why KDE and Gnome are simply overglorified window managers. I never dare use ~/.Desktop. Indeed, the first thing I do when I set up my work environment is remove the desktop icons. Why? Because it doesn't work as I expect it to. Pop in a floppy disk and... why isn't it automounted and symlinked onto the desktop?
Windows is even worse. If I open "My Computer" from the Desktop, I'll find C: there. However, if I open the folder containing My Desktop, on C:, why isn't "My Computer" there? "My Documents" should by the way be c:\MyDocuments. But no, it's really c:\windows\profiles\me\MyDocuments, or was it c:\DocumentsAndFolders\me\MyDocuments or wherever? Argh! Help! Take me out of here!
Don't have time to rant anymore, but my point is that the Desktop metaphor is not bad, as long as it's consistent! Any metaphor will do, as long as it's consistent.
Over and out,
--Bud
Given the additional cost of an LCD screen, a flat-panel iMac would cost about the same as an iBook. And performance-wise they're almost the same. I don't see much of a market for a flat-panel iMac as long as it doesn't provide better performance than the iBook.
--Bud
You should read up on this new technology that we call "search engines". They're really nice. Here's a short tutorial:
And you will get approx. 17800 results, listing at least two printed books. Now wasn't that easy and nice? And faster than submitting that question to Slashdot too!
Just my $0.02, and I even added the sarcasm for FREE! :)
--Bud
Reading through the lines of your post, it's apparent that:
Maybe you should start using another platform, or another editor widget? Mousing skills are always mousing skills, but adapting to one editor widget will CRIPPLE your productivity in other editors.
Besides, no-one is REALLY going to believe that you can do a control-down + shift-control-up in one tenth of a second. But to be fair, no-one can triple-click a credit-card sized target in that time either.
--Bud
Let's see now...
1. Microsoft makes software with security holes.
2. Microsoft chooses to spend money on leveraging their monopoly in order to expand, instead of making software of better quality.
3. Microsoft sees people are getting irritated. Uh-oh. Gotta do something.
4. Microsoft says: "Microsoft good! Virus programmers bad!" Microsoft proposes legislation against computer virii.
5. Taxpayers pay through the nose for the unsuccessful hunting down of virus programmers, many of which live in Taiwan anyway. Microsoft doesn't pay a cent.
6. Virii still exploit the still not patched security holes in Microsoft software.
7. GOTO 2
--Bud
On my new iBook (with OS X 10.1), 3:20 seems to be a good estimate after I've fired up the mailer, a browser and a text editor and started working. If you want to do a little code testing and debugging, you're down to just under 3 hours.
As Graymalkin says, the G3-series PowerBooks can take a second battery, bringing the theoretical total up to 10 hours. In essence, it will easily last a whole working day. On the downside, the G3 PowerBooks are quite bulky. But hey, you can't get everything. :-) At least the newer models have built-in WLAN antennae.
--Bud
Another note: It's impossible to open the case without making ugly marks. You need at least three hands and several thin but nonflexible steel blades. Having done it twice (once for modding and once for demodding), I'm considering opening it once more in order to file down the ugly edges -- and repaint the inside in ultramarine blue. :-)
The only positive thing is that I now know how to replace the optical drive and hard disk. 10GB doesn't really cut it nowadays... I would really like one of those 48GB drives.
That's my 0.02 euro. And... if someone actually succeeds in performing the 600/350 mod, please let me know exactly what resistors you moved. :) Pleeeease!
--Bud
Show me one.
There are currently NO brand new markets in that industry, and if the RIAA gets it's way there will not be any. They are busy protecting their old market.
My take on this is that the RIAA is going to use their weight to form this "brand new market" to their liking. So we'll end up with a brand new market that's suspiciously like the good ole market: pay through your nose for music that you can't copy without a reduction in quality.
--Bud