First of all, what does that have to do with whether or not it's stupid to have to configure a monitor? Second of all, you're wrong.
Windows certainly does restart (or reset, I can't see the code, so I don't know what it's actually doing) the graphics subsystem when you change monitors. The screen goes blank, and it reinitializes all the hardware. It does it every time you change color depth, too. (It restarts your whole system if you change to 16 color mode or from 16 color mode.) Try it.
If your environment is set up correctly, there is no reason you should care wether X restarts or not, because it should come back up exactly as you left it. You're going to have a few seconds of blank screen from physically changing monitors anyway.
Configure your session and applications correctly. (This should be done by default, but unfortunatly it isn't.)
Re:We are talking about purchace cost,not manufact
on
Mac Users May Be Smarter
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The difference is in resale value. In 3 years, the gateway will be worth exactly nil (Except for maybe the monitor), and the mac will be worth $750+.
Cost of the Mac over three years: $750. Cost of the PC: $999. $750 is less money then $999.
Really? It's how windows does it. You plug in a new monitor, and it pops up a little detection window, and adds a monitor to your hardware list. That prevents you from using an incorrect refresh rate and damaging your hardware. Now, perhaps the process should be a little more automated in X, but the behavoir and requirements are correct. The user should never be given the option to damage their hardware by default.
he said something like "They pay me from 7 AM - 5 PM everyday to do something that has never been fun -- and if I ever have to take money from this it will mean that it has stopped being fun..." When he got burned out he would pick a new hobby.
No offence to your dad, but he's fallen into a cultural trap that's been around since the 1950's. You don't have to be unhapy to make money. You don't have to live for the weekend. If you can manage to make money from your hobby, and still have fun doing it, then you should. You can enjoy work. It's okay.
/me climbs off his soap box, and goes back to hacking on kernel code for money.
Support for the aim protocol would have given them access to the existing AIM user base. They could have then made it difficult or unappealing to use anything be the MSN client under windows. Once the majority of the users were using the MSN messanger instead of the AOL messanger, they could make changes to the protocol that favored their operating system and software. How would AOL, or anyone else but microsoft for that matter, have benifitied from Microsoft "embracing an OPEN IM standard"?
It seems to me like Microsoft wants to make the internet unappealing, or even unuseable if they can manage it, without having windows. They're just attacking
I also find it odd that people think that they are allow privacy in a rented vehicle.
So, do you think that when you rent a moving truck, U-Haul should be allowed to go through all your stuff? At what point should we expect privacy? Who draws the line?
Fibre channel? I don't think so. Fibre channel is dying out, and is being replaced by GigE and Gig10E. Fibre channel suffers tremendously from lack of standards, low production volume and high costs.
GigE is based on fibre channel. The physical layer was lifted directly from the fibre channel spec. Ethernet doesn not have the features necissary to be a good storage interconnect. Fibre Channel has many, well defined standards. There is a high production volume. (Almost every enterprise storage solution available has FC)
Fibre Channel is not a good alternative for Serial ATA. Fibre Channel supports way too many things, and the average interface chip is larger then most x86 northbridges. Hardly cost/power/space effective.
Yes FC is a more flexible and competitive solution to scsi but it was never really accepted as a direct interface to the device itself, instead relying on FC-scsi raid bridges to chain multiple tape and raid systems to single or multiple servers.
The fibre channel protocol for storage is basically SCSI. SCSI commands are encapsulated in a fibre channel frame. The only reason that Fibre Channel isn't used as a direct interface to the device is that there really aren't many devices out there with Fibre Channel on them. This is likely because Fibre Channel has so many features that the interface is very expensive, and since it's just encapsulated SCSI anyway, it's much cheaper to have a single interface bridge. This is why we have serial ATA for cheap systems instead of just using (serial) Fibre Channel.
FC disks work in a loop or ring topoligy like token ring. Each drives tx port is connected to the next disks rx port creating a non redundent ring (FL-AL uses a double loop for redundency) so if data in a 10 disk system has to be sent from the host adapter...
Nobody does this. There are three topologies for Fibre Channel: Arbitrated Loop, Point to Point, and Fabric/Switched. Even if people did use the arbitrated loop topology, it doesn't quite work how you described. There is no fighting for bandwidth (That's what the "arbitrated" part is for), and there is no proceesing of other devices data from the loop. It's basically just repeated. In real life, however, only the point to point and switched topologies are used.
127 devices sounds great but take into concideration all 127 have to fight for 100 or 200mbytes a sec then it isnt so cool anymore.
First of all, in switched mode, there are considerably more then 127 devices supported. The device ID on the fabric is 16 bits, and each storage unit is speaking SCSI, so there can be 256 LUNs per device. That's alot of disks. Secondly, most fibrechannel switches have way more then 2Gb/s backplane bandwidth. so you're only fighting for that 100-200MB/s if multiple machines on the storage network are trying to access the same storage. Third, in a single system situation, you're not going to have hundreds of disks, and finally, if you did you'd have the same problem with serial ATA.
sorry bud, but this is not true. Let me extend your argument... sell your products for $0, you keep customers happy but shareholders won't be.
If you want to go to rediculous extremes, you can "prove" either side of the argument. That's why I included my alternate definition of happy at the end of the post. Obviously you want to charge as much as you possibly can and still keep the customers happy.
At the end of the day, you work for the customer. If you have no paying customers, you have no profit. The goal should be to maximize the profit while keeping the customers happy, not to maximize the profit while keeping the shareholders happy. These can be one and the same thing it you work it right, and if your investors are smart (most of them are). If you can't make enough money to make the shareholders happy by keeping you customers happy, then you're in the wrong business, and the investors should be putting their money elsewhere, anyway.
Keeping customers happy is just one way of making money.
Agreed, you can also beat them into submission by having a monopoly (legal, of course) on your product or service, but that can't last for ever, and isn't usually a good long term strategy.
Of course, both companies attempt to dress up their strategy somewhat so as not to disgruntle customers/shareholders, respectively, too much
Anybody who finds themselves thinking like this, or similarly, should be forced to repeat the following ten times before work every morning:
"The customers are the customers, the shareholders are not the customers"
The customers are more important then the shareholders. Whithout customers, what good is a company? Maximize shareholder value after you've done everything necissary to keep the customers happy.
happy \Hap"py\, a. 1: satisfaction resulting in the willingness to spend more money
Aside from the fact that there's not good way to have an enjoyable experience with a downloaded unauthorized copy of a movie right now, there one difference that throws off this whole comparison.
The quality of video available to the public is increasing, and the prices are decreasing.
The quality of music (both the audio quality and the quality of the product) is decreasing, while the price is increasing.
As an aside, has anyone noticed how the variety of music available in music stores has decreased tremendously lately? It's almost impossible to find something specific if it wasn't a top 40 hit in the last 30 years.
The chip should have your unique key stored inside it in hardware and the key should not be accessible to outside software
My understanding of what I've read so far is that this is a public key technique, and Microsoft will sign apps with their private key. Each machine wouldn't have a unique key. If the hardware developers are smart (and they probably are) the public key will be loaded by software into the rights management hardware at boot time.
Hardware developers aren't going to hand microsoft the entire PC software industry. They're going to create a general purpose solution in order to protect their other lucrative markets for these chips (read: embedded solutions that don't run windows). Even if they tried to do otherwise, you'd quickly start to see motherboards with sockets already on board for the mod chip:)
Re:I think that M$ has Missed the Point
on
Microsoft Freon
·
· Score: 2
A machine capable of serving uncapped binary groups to a subscriber base in the 10,000s costs MILLIONS of dollars. (If you want reasonable performance, anyway) It will take a very long time to recoup the costs of such a machine on bandwidth savings, especially when it takes about 20% less bandwidth to download files over a binary protocol then it does to download them over NNTP, and that most news leaches will probably significantly reduce their useage because of a cap.
A more intellegent way for them to go, however, would be to remove the news server access from their service, and then charge users for the bandwidth they use. It wouldn't have to be much. $2 a gigabyte would be enough.
The key is delivering and installing machines. People will pay at least $50 more to have the thing set up and working in their house then they will to pick up a box at Best Buy. Make sure you emphasize that you deliver when you advertize, and consider offering 30-45 minutes of traning after the instalation. This worked wonders for me when I was selling custom machines when I was in college. (Which was only a few years ago.)
This is probably obvious to you, but be careful what you buy in bulk, but do make bulk purchases.
Things that are safe to buy in large quantities:
CD/DVD drives (Way cheaper in bulk)
Floppy Drives
Cases (Freight delivery on 50 cases is a massive savings over ordering individually. Set up an account with a trucker liks Roadway, and get on a discount plan.)
Sound Cards
Network Cards
Fans (Way cheaper in bulk. Try to find a McMaster Carr catalog, or buy directly from manufacturers. Don't skimp. You don't want to be replacing them.)
Mice
Keyboards
Things you should never buy in quantities you're not sure you can sell in a few weeks:
I can understand the 1GB/month newsgroup cap. It requires an enormous amount of resources to run a news server. The rest, I agree, is rediculous. Personally, I'd be happy if add on services were priced seperatly from the bandwidth. For example, my current connection is just a raw pipe to MCI with 8 static IPs. I pay an additional $7/month for 2GB/mont news access (That I only ever use at most 30MB of) and I run my own services for everything else. I get to choose the best providers for the services I want, and the ISP doesn't have to allocate resources to me that I'll never use. It seems like everyone wins.
It also seems to me that the cable companies (around here at least) were tryng to save money, and cut back on staff. Unfortunatly, they got rid of the more expensive employees that knew what they were doing and only kept the green admins. It's unfortunate, because half as many experienced admins probably could do a better job then what, say, the attbi admins do. Probably a decision made by a technologically impared PHB.
Burstable T1's run today in my part of town (Phoenix metro) for a unnegotiatable local loop fee of $400/month, plus data fees of somewhere around $700 - $1200 depending on the provider. I know I'm misconstruing your statement, but as I understand it, Cox.net has an OC-12 coming in to what I assume is the entire Phoenix metro area (3 million people) A pricing structure that would allow for profitability and burstability up to T1 speeds and beyond and the ability to run servers would be only somewhat more cost-effective than an actual dedicated circuit
I'm not saying you have to offer T1 speeds, but the burstable T1 pricing structure. Joe web surfer doesn't need 786kbps. They should have 256kbps with bursts up to 1.5mbps. Also, the majority of the price of a burstable T1 is the SLA. If you get a line without a 24 hour service contract and guaranteed uptime you lower your price by 80%. You can get a FULL T1 in any metro area in the US for $699 a month. You just don't have a service level agreement. If a backhoe cuts your line on saturday morning, they're not even going to start working on fixing it until Monday at the earliest. Your $1500 burstable T1 will be repaired in 12 hours or less.
Furthemore, it is almost trivial to set up a system where savvy users can enable services that are disabled by default to protect the clueless. My ISP has one. It probably took one guy two days to set it up. This facility has to exist in order to spawn new uses for the internet, and create demand for the broadband service. These providers are digging their own grave by blocking access to everybody. The internet as it is right now is not worth $50 a month to most people, and unless creative programmers have access, there won't be new applications developed to make the $50 tab more worthwhile.
You're always free to purchase the business package which lets you run servers.
The business package the cable company in my area offers is the same as the residential package with 5 more e-mail addresses and 4x the price. There's still a dynamic IP, a proxy, a port 80 block, and the support is still clueless.
I think we need to come up with another word other then "server", because "Server" has this big expensive price tag associated with it. Why can't I run a finger daemon, or sshd, or sendmail and imapd? That's an insignificant amount of bandwidth. What's the point of a dedicated internet connection if you disallow all the advantages? How is that "unlimited" internet? If you only want to surf the web, you might as well have dialup. If bandwidth is expensive, then companies should put a price on it. You get the amount you pay for, and you can do whatever you want with it.
Cable modems should be priced like burstable T1's used to be. You get a peak bandwidth, which you can use for x number of bytes per month, and you get a typical rate, which is sufficient for the rest of the time. Software enforces the limits, and you can do whatever you want with the bandwidth you pay for. There shouldn't be some nebulous definition of "unresonable use". You should just not be allowed to do what you're not allowed to do. That way you couldn't have "bandwith hogs" in the first place. It sucks that I have to pay $99 a month for 1.5Mb SDSL just because I need the speed sometimes (8 hours, 1 day a week) but I can't use my connection for what I need it for if I have a cable modem.
I don't know how to do it in MacOS. I'm using linux, and I mapped them with xmodmap. I remember hearing about an extension that would do something similar in MacOS, but I can't remember what it's called.
I tend to use one of these when I'm using MacOS without a mousing surface around.
My powerbook only has one mouse button. Not a problem though, there are lots of extra modifier keys next to the sapcebar on the right, and I've mapped two of those as mouse buttons. It's actually quite useable. I think that's a better location for the extra buttons anyway, because I only have one thumb.
Also, I tend to use an external mouse when I'm at a desk, because I really dislike trackpads when doing delicate work. There are lots of great 3 button USB mice out there.
I don't have any references about Nintendo, but I've heard rumors that they can build a GameCube for
That means that for at least a little while, Sony was pulling in a cool $115 in profit on each PS2 they sold.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, what does that have to do with whether or not it's stupid to have to configure a monitor? Second of all, you're wrong.
Windows certainly does restart (or reset, I can't see the code, so I don't know what it's actually doing) the graphics subsystem when you change monitors. The screen goes blank, and it reinitializes all the hardware. It does it every time you change color depth, too. (It restarts your whole system if you change to 16 color mode or from 16 color mode.) Try it.
If your environment is set up correctly, there is no reason you should care wether X restarts or not, because it should come back up exactly as you left it. You're going to have a few seconds of blank screen from physically changing monitors anyway.
Configure your session and applications correctly. (This should be done by default, but unfortunatly it isn't.)
The difference is in resale value. In 3 years, the gateway will be worth exactly nil (Except for maybe the monitor), and the mac will be worth $750+.
Cost of the Mac over three years: $750. Cost of the PC: $999. $750 is less money then $999.
Really? It's how windows does it. You plug in a new monitor, and it pops up a little detection window, and adds a monitor to your hardware list. That prevents you from using an incorrect refresh rate and damaging your hardware. Now, perhaps the process should be a little more automated in X, but the behavoir and requirements are correct. The user should never be given the option to damage their hardware by default.
I don't use OpenOffice, but I do see the following in the debian package database:
ttf-openoffice - OpenOffice TrueType Fonts
So it seems to be possible.
apt-get install msttcorefonts :)
They're something Microsoft got right, and you're free to use them, even on linux! I haven't looked at an ugly bitmapped font in over two years.
No offence to your dad, but he's fallen into a cultural trap that's been around since the 1950's. You don't have to be unhapy to make money. You don't have to live for the weekend. If you can manage to make money from your hobby, and still have fun doing it, then you should. You can enjoy work. It's okay.
Hmm, what was their plan really?
Support for the aim protocol would have given them access to the existing AIM user base. They could have then made it difficult or unappealing to use anything be the MSN client under windows. Once the majority of the users were using the MSN messanger instead of the AOL messanger, they could make changes to the protocol that favored their operating system and software. How would AOL, or anyone else but microsoft for that matter, have benifitied from Microsoft "embracing an OPEN IM standard"?
It seems to me like Microsoft wants to make the internet unappealing, or even unuseable if they can manage it, without having windows. They're just attacking
I also find it odd that people think that they are allow privacy in a rented vehicle.
So, do you think that when you rent a moving truck, U-Haul should be allowed to go through all your stuff? At what point should we expect privacy? Who draws the line?
and with 10G Ethernet just standardized, it goes faster too.
Try it. Seriously, try and use it. It's slow, high latency, unpredictable, CPU expensive, and basically just not ready yet. Come back in 5 years.
Fibre channel? I don't think so. Fibre channel is dying out, and is being replaced by GigE and Gig10E. Fibre channel suffers tremendously from lack of standards, low production volume and high costs.
GigE is based on fibre channel. The physical layer was lifted directly from the fibre channel spec. Ethernet doesn not have the features necissary to be a good storage interconnect. Fibre Channel has many, well defined standards. There is a high production volume. (Almost every enterprise storage solution available has FC)
Fibre Channel is not a good alternative for Serial ATA. Fibre Channel supports way too many things, and the average interface chip is larger then most x86 northbridges. Hardly cost/power/space effective.
Yes FC is a more flexible and competitive solution to scsi but it was never really accepted as a direct interface to the device itself, instead relying on FC-scsi raid bridges to chain multiple tape and raid systems to single or multiple servers.
The fibre channel protocol for storage is basically SCSI. SCSI commands are encapsulated in a fibre channel frame. The only reason that Fibre Channel isn't used as a direct interface to the device is that there really aren't many devices out there with Fibre Channel on them. This is likely because Fibre Channel has so many features that the interface is very expensive, and since it's just encapsulated SCSI anyway, it's much cheaper to have a single interface bridge. This is why we have serial ATA for cheap systems instead of just using (serial) Fibre Channel.
FC disks work in a loop or ring topoligy like token ring. Each drives tx port is connected to the next disks rx port creating a non redundent ring (FL-AL uses a double loop for redundency) so if data in a 10 disk system has to be sent from the host adapter...
Nobody does this. There are three topologies for Fibre Channel: Arbitrated Loop, Point to Point, and Fabric/Switched. Even if people did use the arbitrated loop topology, it doesn't quite work how you described. There is no fighting for bandwidth (That's what the "arbitrated" part is for), and there is no proceesing of other devices data from the loop. It's basically just repeated. In real life, however, only the point to point and switched topologies are used.
127 devices sounds great but take into concideration all 127 have to fight for 100 or 200mbytes a sec then it isnt so cool anymore.
First of all, in switched mode, there are considerably more then 127 devices supported. The device ID on the fabric is 16 bits, and each storage unit is speaking SCSI, so there can be 256 LUNs per device. That's alot of disks. Secondly, most fibrechannel switches have way more then 2Gb/s backplane bandwidth. so you're only fighting for that 100-200MB/s if multiple machines on the storage network are trying to access the same storage. Third, in a single system situation, you're not going to have hundreds of disks, and finally, if you did you'd have the same problem with serial ATA.
sorry bud, but this is not true. Let me extend your argument... sell your products for $0, you keep customers happy but shareholders won't be.
If you want to go to rediculous extremes, you can "prove" either side of the argument. That's why I included my alternate definition of happy at the end of the post. Obviously you want to charge as much as you possibly can and still keep the customers happy.
At the end of the day, you work for the customer. If you have no paying customers, you have no profit. The goal should be to maximize the profit while keeping the customers happy, not to maximize the profit while keeping the shareholders happy. These can be one and the same thing it you work it right, and if your investors are smart (most of them are). If you can't make enough money to make the shareholders happy by keeping you customers happy, then you're in the wrong business, and the investors should be putting their money elsewhere, anyway.
Keeping customers happy is just one way of making money.
Agreed, you can also beat them into submission by having a monopoly (legal, of course) on your product or service, but that can't last for ever, and isn't usually a good long term strategy.
Of course, both companies attempt to dress up their strategy somewhat so as not to disgruntle customers/shareholders, respectively, too much
Anybody who finds themselves thinking like this, or similarly, should be forced to repeat the following ten times before work every morning:
"The customers are the customers, the shareholders are not the customers"
The customers are more important then the shareholders. Whithout customers, what good is a company? Maximize shareholder value after you've done everything necissary to keep the customers happy.
happy \Hap"py\, a. 1: satisfaction resulting in the willingness to spend more money
Aside from the fact that there's not good way to have an enjoyable experience with a downloaded unauthorized copy of a movie right now, there one difference that throws off this whole comparison.
The quality of video available to the public is increasing, and the prices are decreasing.
The quality of music (both the audio quality and the quality of the product) is decreasing, while the price is increasing.
As an aside, has anyone noticed how the variety of music available in music stores has decreased tremendously lately? It's almost impossible to find something specific if it wasn't a top 40 hit in the last 30 years.
The chip should have your unique key stored inside it in hardware and the key should not be accessible to outside software
:)
My understanding of what I've read so far is that this is a public key technique, and Microsoft will sign apps with their private key. Each machine wouldn't have a unique key. If the hardware developers are smart (and they probably are) the public key will be loaded by software into the rights management hardware at boot time.
Hardware developers aren't going to hand microsoft the entire PC software industry. They're going to create a general purpose solution in order to protect their other lucrative markets for these chips (read: embedded solutions that don't run windows). Even if they tried to do otherwise, you'd quickly start to see motherboards with sockets already on board for the mod chip
Let me surprise them when I don't buy it.
A machine capable of serving uncapped binary groups to a subscriber base in the 10,000s costs MILLIONS of dollars. (If you want reasonable performance, anyway) It will take a very long time to recoup the costs of such a machine on bandwidth savings, especially when it takes about 20% less bandwidth to download files over a binary protocol then it does to download them over NNTP, and that most news leaches will probably significantly reduce their useage because of a cap.
A more intellegent way for them to go, however, would be to remove the news server access from their service, and then charge users for the bandwidth they use. It wouldn't have to be much. $2 a gigabyte would be enough.
This is probably obvious to you, but be careful what you buy in bulk, but do make bulk purchases.
Things that are safe to buy in large quantities:
Things you should never buy in quantities you're not sure you can sell in a few weeks:
Everything else is a close call.
I can understand the 1GB/month newsgroup cap. It requires an enormous amount of resources to run a news server. The rest, I agree, is rediculous. Personally, I'd be happy if add on services were priced seperatly from the bandwidth. For example, my current connection is just a raw pipe to MCI with 8 static IPs. I pay an additional $7/month for 2GB/mont news access (That I only ever use at most 30MB of) and I run my own services for everything else. I get to choose the best providers for the services I want, and the ISP doesn't have to allocate resources to me that I'll never use. It seems like everyone wins.
It also seems to me that the cable companies (around here at least) were tryng to save money, and cut back on staff. Unfortunatly, they got rid of the more expensive employees that knew what they were doing and only kept the green admins. It's unfortunate, because half as many experienced admins probably could do a better job then what, say, the attbi admins do. Probably a decision made by a technologically impared PHB.
Burstable T1's run today in my part of town (Phoenix metro) for a unnegotiatable local loop fee of $400/month, plus data fees of somewhere around $700 - $1200 depending on the provider. I know I'm misconstruing your statement, but as I understand it, Cox.net has an OC-12 coming in to what I assume is the entire Phoenix metro area (3 million people) A pricing structure that would allow for profitability and burstability up to T1 speeds and beyond and the ability to run servers would be only somewhat more cost-effective than an actual dedicated circuit
I'm not saying you have to offer T1 speeds, but the burstable T1 pricing structure. Joe web surfer doesn't need 786kbps. They should have 256kbps with bursts up to 1.5mbps. Also, the majority of the price of a burstable T1 is the SLA. If you get a line without a 24 hour service contract and guaranteed uptime you lower your price by 80%. You can get a FULL T1 in any metro area in the US for $699 a month. You just don't have a service level agreement. If a backhoe cuts your line on saturday morning, they're not even going to start working on fixing it until Monday at the earliest. Your $1500 burstable T1 will be repaired in 12 hours or less.
Furthemore, it is almost trivial to set up a system where savvy users can enable services that are disabled by default to protect the clueless. My ISP has one. It probably took one guy two days to set it up. This facility has to exist in order to spawn new uses for the internet, and create demand for the broadband service. These providers are digging their own grave by blocking access to everybody. The internet as it is right now is not worth $50 a month to most people, and unless creative programmers have access, there won't be new applications developed to make the $50 tab more worthwhile.
You're always free to purchase the business package which lets you run servers.
The business package the cable company in my area offers is the same as the residential package with 5 more e-mail addresses and 4x the price. There's still a dynamic IP, a proxy, a port 80 block, and the support is still clueless.
I think we need to come up with another word other then "server", because "Server" has this big expensive price tag associated with it. Why can't I run a finger daemon, or sshd, or sendmail and imapd? That's an insignificant amount of bandwidth. What's the point of a dedicated internet connection if you disallow all the advantages? How is that "unlimited" internet? If you only want to surf the web, you might as well have dialup. If bandwidth is expensive, then companies should put a price on it. You get the amount you pay for, and you can do whatever you want with it.
Cable modems should be priced like burstable T1's used to be. You get a peak bandwidth, which you can use for x number of bytes per month, and you get a typical rate, which is sufficient for the rest of the time. Software enforces the limits, and you can do whatever you want with the bandwidth you pay for. There shouldn't be some nebulous definition of "unresonable use". You should just not be allowed to do what you're not allowed to do. That way you couldn't have "bandwith hogs" in the first place. It sucks that I have to pay $99 a month for 1.5Mb SDSL just because I need the speed sometimes (8 hours, 1 day a week) but I can't use my connection for what I need it for if I have a cable modem.
I don't know how to do it in MacOS. I'm using linux, and I mapped them with xmodmap. I remember hearing about an extension that would do something similar in MacOS, but I can't remember what it's called.
I tend to use one of these when I'm using MacOS without a mousing surface around.
because I only have one thumb.
:)
Agh. Replying to my own post... I actually have two thumbs, but only one one each hand.
My powerbook only has one mouse button. Not a problem though, there are lots of extra modifier keys next to the sapcebar on the right, and I've mapped two of those as mouse buttons. It's actually quite useable. I think that's a better location for the extra buttons anyway, because I only have one thumb.
Also, I tend to use an external mouse when I'm at a desk, because I really dislike trackpads when doing delicate work. There are lots of great 3 button USB mice out there.
http://www.theinquirer.net/25060210.htm
I don't have any references about Nintendo, but I've heard rumors that they can build a GameCube for That means that for at least a little while, Sony was pulling in a cool $115 in profit on each PS2 they sold.