Beta drivers are beta because they haven't been qualified, certified, tested, whatever. Heck, even non-beta drivers have bugs and problems! So I'd think if NVIDIA had beta drivers for Linux, that by the very definition of beta, they haven't tested it thoroughly enough to guarantee anything under Linux.
Which goes back to poor Linux support, given how many generations of cards have come and gone under Linux now...
You're one of the few who seem to want to do something with your wealth and resources, other than just collect it, or stroke your ego, or flaunt it(well, at least do more than just collect/stroke/flaunt). Is there more that those who have less wealth can do, you think? I donate to scholarship funds, to public television, and to alumni funds. But this system helped to create me, when what I want to do is to help people that didn't get helped by the system, people who weren't me. Is that just stupid and unfeasible?
Do you see a problem with the way the Internet, information access, and society is currently organized? Various terms, such as the digital divide or chasm are bandied about; what are your views on the issue, and what do you think needs to be addressed?
It goes deeper than just the internet-learning, science, education, and empowerment in general are all closely tied to this. Women/minorities/underrepresented majorites in science/engineering/power, the haves producing systems that exclude and isolate the have nots, even if it isn't malicious or intentionl, and those who have power producing systems that ignore those who don't, just out of negligence and lack of foresight.
Nothing personal against slashdot-terminal, but I don't want an answer to this kind of question...
...because they think it's a benefit and will lead them to a good job...
Very clearly, in such a hot market and economy, a degree is not necessary to get a good job, when all it takes is skill, effort, ability, and some decent discipline.
Rather, a degree is just a certification that there is some measure of all of the above in the certified/decorated student.
...employers that have or would be willing to accept a graduate of your university...
I'd think Greenspun, obviously would. Also, at this point in the game, anyone who can spot talent, ability, or is even looking for a warm body to code, would take someone who can handle the curricula. It's the person, almost more than the skills, because skills can be honed, taught, and managed. People are much harder to manipulate.
Do you think the numbers will increase?
Of course, this is dependent on the quality of the students who go into the course, and how they handle the course, and not really a function of the course itself except to weed out those people who can handle it, vs those who cant.
But really, I'd rather hear Greenspun talk about how he wants to change education, or why he's doing it when no one else(with more money, resources, etc) is tackling it, what can be done for those who *don't* qualify for his program, and how to get those left out of the system(female, black/hispanic, whatever) integrated into it, or if that is even a problem, etc.
But, of course, if moderators really want to see this question asked of Greenspun... go ahead and ignore me.
This is off topic and not meant to be trolling or flaming!
But still. Wow.
You do know, slashdot-terminal, that life and reality is unreasonable, irrational, unpredictable, illogical, and undeniable? Any reason, logic, rationality and predictability in the system is there because we created it that way? Physics is not reality; physics is our attempt to model, predict, and understand it.
Reason and logic are not natural things, but manmade things to allow us to live in our Universe. If there is order or pattern or reason, it's because our brains see it, not because it naturally exists. Things flow and ebb and progress, as is the nature of time, life, and change, but any kind of reasoning that exists is there because we thought about it, not because it naturally exists...
I'm not saying anything about the effect itself, just that doubt, while useful, is not the end all. Open mindedness needs to be balanced by the doubt is all.
I do believe, if this effect exists, is available to everyone, however, it would also make sense that the average guy, untrained in exerting himself in this way, should effect everything in a neutral way; statistically, the guy averages out his effects on his TV because he isn't trained to focus anything. I mean, if the way a person stands in a room can affect the TV reception, why should the radio waves a person puts out also affect it? It should be more subtle, however, and may require more sensitive devices, and it would need effort, and training, the same way that any other skill is developed.
I'm not sure what you intend to convey; you seem to get it up to the exotic behavior part.
And the brain does generate radio signals, and these can interact with things just like any other EM device... but what else would they interact with, besides subatomic particles? Atomic particles? Fridges and couches? We can't exactly move cars with our minds... much less chunks of gold or sodium or lithium. But it would seem, given how weak the waves are, that interacting with an electron or two makes perfect sense. After all, isn't that how CCDs and solar cells word? Photon at a time, from light...
At least, I'd imagine they would build some kind of imaging array, tuned towards the mind, but in general on a similar principle as a CCD or solar cell... Just apply QM to it because of the statistical nature of the information.
Why do you say nothing will come of it? You don't know, already, do you? Because if you do, and you can prove it or show it or demonstrate it, please do, and save taxpayers and the rest of humanity untold millions of dollars in waste and embarrassment.
The whole point of basic research is that *everything* you look at is within the minority fringe until something has been shown, validated, modeled, predicted, and reviewed. Think Relativity; 100 years ago it would have been viewed as rubbish. Think QM. Think QED. Think gravity 500 years ago! So now it is fringe and faddish and strange. But what about 100 years from now, when IBM or Intel or someone discovers the way to interact with brainwaves(we do emit radiation, you know... and I suppose if you built the appropriate devices, you could read them or respond to them)?
Personally, I don't think this post deserves the moderation... but, if it prompts conversation, it's probably worth keeping it here
As for your Elph, doesn't the Canon S10 also take the IBM microDrive? It's relatively small, compared to the QV2k+
Yeah, the bundled deal is $799 for microDrive plus camera.
How about upload and such? There's no synching problems for you? I run NT, and Linux, but no 9x machines in my house. Would like to be able to upload my pictures to my PC...
I'm hoping this gets moderated enough for people to see it; or that people see the title and respond.
So here's a list of low end cameras that seem really nice: Epson PhotoPC650 Kodak DC10+ Kodak DC15Zoom
For about less than $350. Questions include software reliability, picture quality, ease of use, battery usage, etc.
For the more expensive cameras, here's a representative list: Epson PhotoPC750Zoom Kodak DC240Zoom Casio QV2000+(340mb microDrive!) Canon S10 For about $800 or less.
Not to troll or cause flamage, but it really doesn't help the/. reader trying to buy a digital camera; it's interesting, yes, insightful, yes, but also not very useful when one wants to find out about:
Quality of the camera
ruggedness
CCD/image capture quality
battery life
ease of use
reliability
support options
OSes supported
reliability of software
transfer speed
Stuff like that.
For example, I've heard from a store that Kodak cameras aren't very well supported from Kodak; a multitiude of Slashdot readers exclaim the praises of their cameras, however.
Then there's Epson's PhotoPC650, and excellent looking camera. HP isn't a great camera, despite their good printers and scanners. Does Epson stack up? Casio's QV2000+ seems a great idea, packing an IBM microDrive.
At least, it seems those are more what the questions was asking for; referrals, recommendations, etc.
Hmm. I try to get by without judgement. I mean, if I don't have the time or energy to deal with an article, I just won't read it.
I'm saying we aren't really peers of Katz because we don't write anything of substance for the front page of Slashdot. Thus my previous point; if we were really his peers, we would be walking in his shoes and living in his space. Since we aren't everything we see and say is clouded by the fact that we are, essentially, outsiders looking in. If you really don't want to be his peer, that's your choice, not mine. I can call you anything I want, real, imaginary, fictional, or otherwise, and that's just my delusion and reality.
So judge him, as long as you're comfortable with the fact that other people will judge you similarly. I prefer to not judge, if possible, on the grounds that I don't want to be judged either. Because, in all the world, in all the situations and contexts, sometime, someplace, you too will be an idiot, annoying as hell, etc... and someone just like you will be saying that about you. It would bother me if someone were to believe things like that about me... so I avoid believing that of others.
Now what would happen if Katz had another identity, and it happened to be OOG? Or some other of the trolls? It could happen ^^
But that's my point. (You think)Katz is an idiot. He's not being spectacularly different than you or I, and doesn't deserve the label any more or less than we do.
If we are his peers, we can judge him. But if we are truly his peers, we realize we are just like him at some level, and any judgements we can make are hollow, pointless, and empty. Of course, if we aren't his peers, we actually have very little basis on which to judge him, then.
I don't begrudge the OOGs or the Katzes, both are part and parcel of what/. is today. I don't mean to take/. seriously, I mean to take you seriously, because you are a person/entity, and/. is not; it's a collective, and emergent response behavior of all the yous and Is on the site.
I'm hoping you're just being humorous and joking about OOG and Katz.
What separates you from an idiot? Not to troll, flame, or whatever, but inside you/me/he/they/us is about the same chances for genius, idiocy, murderers, parents, children, etc.
Fine, you don't like Katz, that's just a personal thing. But I really hope this was a thought out comment, and not an innate, subconscious thread of your personality...
Microsoft is too focused on Palm, methinks, what with the form factor and all...
What Pocket PC would rock in, I think, is in a digital camcorder, digital camera, or mp3 player.
I only think that because PocketPC is too clunky, clumsy, and big, that Palm(with it's licenses to Sony et al) will get there first, and do it better.
But that doesn't suit M$'s purposes, does it? Because in those devices, the OS is secondary and is only there to enable the devices themselves; record and playback, digital media, etc.
Somehow my post got scored redundant(fine, perhaps it is...)
But then chacal's <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/19 /1733239&cid=157">reply</a> to me also gets moderated as redundant...
It's not as if we're trying to burn karma points here. Especially since I'm not seeing anything above it that's asking the same question or getting answers...
Of course, then there's the strangeness that Slashdot is not even showing me any of the posts of 2 or so. Is there something screwy going on with Slashdot right now?
I don't think so. Not when PDAs are approaching the price points of TVs...
Do you ever hear the complaint that there are too many kinds of TVs with different features? Trinitron, ultra-flat, HDTV, PIP, auto-scan, etc?
It's not glutting the market. The market isn't even very well defined yet, so all these different PDAs will help define the market.
Though I do suspect that what happens is that 80% of the market will consolidate around 4 PDAs using the PalmOS.
Sony will replace their remote controls with a PalmOS device, that will also happen to play their digital music format, use the memory stick, connect to the PSX2 via USB, and generally focus around their consumer network. We might also see PalmOS inside camcorders and cameras.
Palm itself has the business PDA locked tight. Or Handspring.
Apple might have itself a kids/general PDA. Bright, colorful, fun. Use it to interface with the Macs and the wireless network. Perhaps a client of Mac networking software, it will give them access to Quicktime movies, music, the internet(and search engines), etc.
Someone will come out with a Gameboy type Palm. Or Nintendo will. For gaming, music, movies. Perhaps it won't even be a handheld! A monocle, an earbud, a microphone, all connected together via BlueTooth, where the PDA itself is just a small pager like device that accepts a CD the size of a quarter. Or a IBM microdrive.
If not Sony, then someone else a PalmOS camera/camcorder, IBM microDrive for storage, mp3-like software to encode voice through the microphone, mpeg encoding for the video, in something the size of a pack of cards. The lens should be the biggest component, and then the LCD display. Oh, and power.
So no, I don't think there is a glut. Just plenty of spaces for handheld devices to grow
OpenGL does 2d/3d Sound does not have an API; Enter OpenML? Networking does not have an API(other than sockets) Surprisingly, OpenGL + GLUT|GLAUX == Input Devices
But the problem being that DirectX is closed, proprietary, and is probably costing all the hardware manufacturers lots of money and resources in supporting a standard that changes almost twice a year...
Where OpenGL is at version 1.1? 1.2? Pkus extensions, of course
Thus far, there's no indication that any of this stuff will exist under Linux, BeOS, Mac, etc.
I mean, with the intent of the API, it could very well <em>exist</em> under every platform out there... but someone has to implement it. I expect to see this firstly on Windows machines, since all the companies seem to have big investments in the Windows world.
Essentially, this looks like OpenGL++, with extensions and support for video, sound, and more interaction and synchronization details. So Linux won't have it, unless there's a workalike(think MesaML or something)
I would wonder if the API is open source and available, but relies on the individuals involved to provide closed binary level compatibility? There's nothing saying that this is a great thing for consumers... what this is, is a great thing for developers and companies that sell hardware, to no longer be tied or controlled by Microsoft or any other organization.
Now, if all these corporations adopted Linux or BSD or something like that and produced a <em>reference</em> implementation, the way Sun produces a reference Java, or SGI did a reference OpenGL... But I fear, for market acceptance, that we will see a reference implementation under Windows.
SGI and NVIDIA may have partnered, some, and exchanged engineers and technology, but they, as far as I know, are still separate technologies and companies.
SGI does systems and solutions, where NVIDIA does components; they can coexist and cooperate, but they are not(yet) interchangeable.
DVD support, Firewire support, USB support, decent PSX compatibility(with CVGS), and a modem. In one unit.
It'd be amusing if Apple released a iBox or something; a headless iMac for use with TV or monitor, with a G4 processor and AltiVec, for $500 or something. Then the biggest difference would be market targetting of the devices.
Of course, the iBox would have ethernet support over the PSX2 modem, and the PSX2 would have better controllers and peripherals(unless they were USB... then switch and plug!)
Slashdot Mirror
The drivers are beta, but they work just fine?
Beta drivers are beta because they haven't been qualified, certified, tested, whatever. Heck, even non-beta drivers have bugs and problems! So I'd think if NVIDIA had beta drivers for Linux, that by the very definition of beta, they haven't tested it thoroughly enough to guarantee anything under Linux.
Which goes back to poor Linux support, given how many generations of cards have come and gone under Linux now...
-AS
You're one of the few who seem to want to do something with your wealth and resources, other than just collect it, or stroke your ego, or flaunt it(well, at least do more than just collect/stroke/flaunt). Is there more that those who have less wealth can do, you think? I donate to scholarship funds, to public television, and to alumni funds. But this system helped to create me, when what I want to do is to help people that didn't get helped by the system, people who weren't me. Is that just stupid and unfeasible?
-AS
Do you see a problem with the way the Internet, information access, and society is currently organized? Various terms, such as the digital divide or chasm are bandied about; what are your views on the issue, and what do you think needs to be addressed?
It goes deeper than just the internet-learning, science, education, and empowerment in general are all closely tied to this. Women/minorities/underrepresented majorites in science/engineering/power, the haves producing systems that exclude and isolate the have nots, even if it isn't malicious or intentionl, and those who have power producing systems that ignore those who don't, just out of negligence and lack of foresight.
Thanks!
-AS
Nothing personal against slashdot-terminal, but I don't want an answer to this kind of question...
Very clearly, in such a hot market and economy, a degree is not necessary to get a good job, when all it takes is skill, effort, ability, and some decent discipline.
Rather, a degree is just a certification that there is some measure of all of the above in the certified/decorated student.
I'd think Greenspun, obviously would. Also, at this point in the game, anyone who can spot talent, ability, or is even looking for a warm body to code, would take someone who can handle the curricula. It's the person, almost more than the skills, because skills can be honed, taught, and managed. People are much harder to manipulate.
Do you think the numbers will increase?
Of course, this is dependent on the quality of the students who go into the course, and how they handle the course, and not really a function of the course itself except to weed out those people who can handle it, vs those who cant.
But really, I'd rather hear Greenspun talk about how he wants to change education, or why he's doing it when no one else(with more money, resources, etc) is tackling it, what can be done for those who *don't* qualify for his program, and how to get those left out of the system(female, black/hispanic, whatever) integrated into it, or if that is even a problem, etc.
But, of course, if moderators really want to see this question asked of Greenspun... go ahead and ignore me.
-AS
This is off topic and not meant to be trolling or flaming!
But still. Wow.
You do know, slashdot-terminal, that life and reality is unreasonable, irrational, unpredictable, illogical, and undeniable? Any reason, logic, rationality and predictability in the system is there because we created it that way? Physics is not reality; physics is our attempt to model, predict, and understand it.
Reason and logic are not natural things, but manmade things to allow us to live in our Universe. If there is order or pattern or reason, it's because our brains see it, not because it naturally exists. Things flow and ebb and progress, as is the nature of time, life, and change, but any kind of reasoning that exists is there because we thought about it, not because it naturally exists...
-AS
I'm not saying anything about the effect itself, just that doubt, while useful, is not the end all. Open mindedness needs to be balanced by the doubt is all.
I do believe, if this effect exists, is available to everyone, however, it would also make sense that the average guy, untrained in exerting himself in this way, should effect everything in a neutral way; statistically, the guy averages out his effects on his TV because he isn't trained to focus anything. I mean, if the way a person stands in a room can affect the TV reception, why should the radio waves a person puts out also affect it? It should be more subtle, however, and may require more sensitive devices, and it would need effort, and training, the same way that any other skill is developed.
-AS
I'm not sure what you intend to convey; you seem to get it up to the exotic behavior part.
And the brain does generate radio signals, and these can interact with things just like any other EM device... but what else would they interact with, besides subatomic particles? Atomic particles? Fridges and couches? We can't exactly move cars with our minds... much less chunks of gold or sodium or lithium. But it would seem, given how weak the waves are, that interacting with an electron or two makes perfect sense. After all, isn't that how CCDs and solar cells word? Photon at a time, from light...
At least, I'd imagine they would build some kind of imaging array, tuned towards the mind, but in general on a similar principle as a CCD or solar cell... Just apply QM to it because of the statistical nature of the information.
-AS
Why do you say nothing will come of it? You don't know, already, do you? Because if you do, and you can prove it or show it or demonstrate it, please do, and save taxpayers and the rest of humanity untold millions of dollars in waste and embarrassment.
The whole point of basic research is that *everything* you look at is within the minority fringe until something has been shown, validated, modeled, predicted, and reviewed. Think Relativity; 100 years ago it would have been viewed as rubbish. Think QM. Think QED. Think gravity 500 years ago! So now it is fringe and faddish and strange. But what about 100 years from now, when IBM or Intel or someone discovers the way to interact with brainwaves(we do emit radiation, you know... and I suppose if you built the appropriate devices, you could read them or respond to them)?
Personally, I don't think this post deserves the moderation... but, if it prompts conversation, it's probably worth keeping it here
-AS
I want to see someone build Inspector Gadget's GadgetCar.
Take an older Celica, 1980's maybe, and refit it. Or take a Mitsubishi mini-van.
Of course it would also be fun to see a gallery of real BatMobiles too.
Then there are the classic cars; KITT and the General Lee, the A-Team chevyVan, etc.
Ah, nostalgia
-AS
As for your Elph, doesn't the Canon S10 also take the IBM microDrive? It's relatively small, compared to the QV2k+
Yeah, the bundled deal is $799 for microDrive plus camera.
How about upload and such? There's no synching problems for you? I run NT, and Linux, but no 9x machines in my house. Would like to be able to upload my pictures to my PC...
-AS
I'm hoping this gets moderated enough for people to see it; or that people see the title and respond.
So here's a list of low end cameras that seem really nice:
Epson PhotoPC650
Kodak DC10+
Kodak DC15Zoom
For about less than $350. Questions include software reliability, picture quality, ease of use, battery usage, etc.
For the more expensive cameras, here's a representative list:
Epson PhotoPC750Zoom
Kodak DC240Zoom
Casio QV2000+(340mb microDrive!)
Canon S10
For about $800 or less.
Any comments on these models?
-AS
Not to troll or cause flamage, but it really doesn't help the /. reader trying to buy a digital camera; it's interesting, yes, insightful, yes, but also not very useful when one wants to find out about:
Stuff like that.
For example, I've heard from a store that Kodak cameras aren't very well supported from Kodak; a multitiude of Slashdot readers exclaim the praises of their cameras, however.
Then there's Epson's PhotoPC650, and excellent looking camera. HP isn't a great camera, despite their good printers and scanners. Does Epson stack up? Casio's QV2000+ seems a great idea, packing an IBM microDrive.
At least, it seems those are more what the questions was asking for; referrals, recommendations, etc.
-AS
Hmm. I try to get by without judgement. I mean, if I don't have the time or energy to deal with an article, I just won't read it.
I'm saying we aren't really peers of Katz because we don't write anything of substance for the front page of Slashdot. Thus my previous point; if we were really his peers, we would be walking in his shoes and living in his space. Since we aren't everything we see and say is clouded by the fact that we are, essentially, outsiders looking in. If you really don't want to be his peer, that's your choice, not mine. I can call you anything I want, real, imaginary, fictional, or otherwise, and that's just my delusion and reality.
So judge him, as long as you're comfortable with the fact that other people will judge you similarly. I prefer to not judge, if possible, on the grounds that I don't want to be judged either. Because, in all the world, in all the situations and contexts, sometime, someplace, you too will be an idiot, annoying as hell, etc... and someone just like you will be saying that about you. It would bother me if someone were to believe things like that about me... so I avoid believing that of others.
Now what would happen if Katz had another identity, and it happened to be OOG? Or some other of the trolls? It could happen ^^
-AS
Good luck with finals then!
I like your sense of humor
-AS
But that's my point. (You think)Katz is an idiot. He's not being spectacularly different than you or I, and doesn't deserve the label any more or less than we do.
/. is today. I don't mean to take /. seriously, I mean to take you seriously, because you are a person/entity, and /. is not; it's a collective, and emergent response behavior of all the yous and Is on the site.
If we are his peers, we can judge him. But if we are truly his peers, we realize we are just like him at some level, and any judgements we can make are hollow, pointless, and empty. Of course, if we aren't his peers, we actually have very little basis on which to judge him, then.
I don't begrudge the OOGs or the Katzes, both are part and parcel of what
-AS
I'm hoping you're just being humorous and joking about OOG and Katz.
What separates you from an idiot? Not to troll, flame, or whatever, but inside you/me/he/they/us is about the same chances for genius, idiocy, murderers, parents, children, etc.
Fine, you don't like Katz, that's just a personal thing. But I really hope this was a thought out comment, and not an innate, subconscious thread of your personality...
-AS
Microsoft is too focused on Palm, methinks, what with the form factor and all...
What Pocket PC would rock in, I think, is in a digital camcorder, digital camera, or mp3 player.
I only think that because PocketPC is too clunky, clumsy, and big, that Palm(with it's licenses to Sony et al) will get there first, and do it better.
But that doesn't suit M$'s purposes, does it? Because in those devices, the OS is secondary and is only there to enable the devices themselves; record and playback, digital media, etc.
-AS
Somehow my post got scored redundant(fine, perhaps it is...)
9 /1733239&cid=157">reply</a> to me also gets moderated as redundant...
But then chacal's <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/04/1
It's not as if we're trying to burn karma points here. Especially since I'm not seeing anything above it that's asking the same question or getting answers...
Of course, then there's the strangeness that Slashdot is not even showing me any of the posts of 2 or so. Is there something screwy going on with Slashdot right now?
-AS
I don't think so. Not when PDAs are approaching the price points of TVs...
Do you ever hear the complaint that there are too many kinds of TVs with different features? Trinitron, ultra-flat, HDTV, PIP, auto-scan, etc?
It's not glutting the market. The market isn't even very well defined yet, so all these different PDAs will help define the market.
Though I do suspect that what happens is that 80% of the market will consolidate around 4 PDAs using the PalmOS.
Sony will replace their remote controls with a PalmOS device, that will also happen to play their digital music format, use the memory stick, connect to the PSX2 via USB, and generally focus around their consumer network. We might also see PalmOS inside camcorders and cameras.
Palm itself has the business PDA locked tight. Or Handspring.
Apple might have itself a kids/general PDA. Bright, colorful, fun. Use it to interface with the Macs and the wireless network. Perhaps a client of Mac networking software, it will give them access to Quicktime movies, music, the internet(and search engines), etc.
Someone will come out with a Gameboy type Palm. Or Nintendo will. For gaming, music, movies. Perhaps it won't even be a handheld! A monocle, an earbud, a microphone, all connected together via BlueTooth, where the PDA itself is just a small pager like device that accepts a CD the size of a quarter. Or a IBM microdrive.
If not Sony, then someone else a PalmOS camera/camcorder, IBM microDrive for storage, mp3-like software to encode voice through the microphone, mpeg encoding for the video, in something the size of a pack of cards. The lens should be the biggest component, and then the LCD display. Oh, and power.
So no, I don't think there is a glut. Just plenty of spaces for handheld devices to grow
-AS
So, seriously, can one install the new software onto an old WinCE machine?
That would have been a very nice feature, for those who have invested in the older hardware/software...
Can't see anything in the FAQ at Microsoft's site... will look more at some other sites though
Anyone have any info?
-AS
No text
-AS
OpenGL does 2d/3d
Sound does not have an API; Enter OpenML?
Networking does not have an API(other than sockets)
Surprisingly, OpenGL + GLUT|GLAUX == Input Devices
But the problem being that DirectX is closed, proprietary, and is probably costing all the hardware manufacturers lots of money and resources in supporting a standard that changes almost twice a year...
Where OpenGL is at version 1.1? 1.2? Pkus extensions, of course
-AS
Thus far, there's no indication that any of this stuff will exist under Linux, BeOS, Mac, etc.
I mean, with the intent of the API, it could very well <em>exist</em> under every platform out there... but someone has to implement it. I expect to see this firstly on Windows machines, since all the companies seem to have big investments in the Windows world.
Essentially, this looks like OpenGL++, with extensions and support for video, sound, and more interaction and synchronization details. So Linux won't have it, unless there's a workalike(think MesaML or something)
I would wonder if the API is open source and available, but relies on the individuals involved to provide closed binary level compatibility? There's nothing saying that this is a great thing for consumers... what this is, is a great thing for developers and companies that sell hardware, to no longer be tied or controlled by Microsoft or any other organization.
Now, if all these corporations adopted Linux or BSD or something like that and produced a <em>reference</em> implementation, the way Sun produces a reference Java, or SGI did a reference OpenGL... But I fear, for market acceptance, that we will see a reference implementation under Windows.
Keep our fingers crossed!
-AS
SGI and NVIDIA may have partnered, some, and exchanged engineers and technology, but they, as far as I know, are still separate technologies and companies.
SGI does systems and solutions, where NVIDIA does components; they can coexist and cooperate, but they are not(yet) interchangeable.
-AS
It's this close to being an iMac DV ^^;
DVD support, Firewire support, USB support, decent PSX compatibility(with CVGS), and a modem. In one unit.
It'd be amusing if Apple released a iBox or something; a headless iMac for use with TV or monitor, with a G4 processor and AltiVec, for $500 or something. Then the biggest difference would be market targetting of the devices.
Of course, the iBox would have ethernet support over the PSX2 modem, and the PSX2 would have better controllers and peripherals(unless they were USB... then switch and plug!)
Just random rambling on my part
-AS