I think the default desktop setup and the lack of out-of-box support for anything but SCSI CD-ROMs tells that tale.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I've never had a SCSI CD-ROM and have happily installed and used OS/2 since the v2 betas - still am, when I can, although I'm moving on to Linux now.
This has been endlessly discussed in the comp.os.os2.* newsgroups. The real question is whether the System Object Model can be ported off the platform - especially since IBM has now essentially dropped all development of the technology. The consensus (granted, of outsiders) is that trying to do so would be a nightmare.
Sure; but I could do something about it without digging into the innards. And I sure could move/deleta any desktop object I wanted, unlike the wired-in inability to delete, say, the IE icon on a WinXX desktop.
I can't argue esthetics are unimportant, but there's nothing more aggravating than a pretty desktop with *NO* functionality, IMHO.
(Non-)Intuitive? What isn't? Explain to me again how 'drag the disk icon to the garbage can' intuitively translates into 'eject the floppy' when dragging a file icon to it means 'erase the file?'
Falling back on intuition is a dangerous game to play, IMHO - the real issue is how hard it is to learn; how many cues you get when you need them. After all, a serious fraction of the WPS interface ended up being copied by MS-Win, and everyone was willing to learn it then.
And, for me, the WPS is still my favorite working environment.......
The energy density of lead-acid batteries-the kind used in conventional cars for startup and auxiliary power-is about 35 watt-hours per kilogram, less than one-three-hundredth that of gasoline, which is about 12,000 watt-hours per kilogram. As a rule of thumb, 1 gallon of gasoline, weighing about 8 pounds, has the same energy content as a ton of lead-acid batteries.
IOW, gasoline has a rather incredible energy density, particularly when you consider the fact that it can be (relatively) safely handled by the public. In fact, you have to work pretty hard to make it explode.
As has been cited elsewhere, the infrastructure today is the thing that governs the fuel that we use. Cost of delivery is a real fraction of that cost, and setting up another infrastructure to handle some new fuel is a real bear. That's why there's so much work going into figuring out how to convert liquid fuels (with their high energy density) into something that a fuel cell, which doesn't incur the thermodynamic losses inherent in combustion, can use.
Otherwise, the only really credible mechanism for increasing fuel efficiency using an "alternative" fuel is the diesel engine - stratified charge diesels can achieve +45% efficiencies, while the Otto cycle pretty much tops out in the high 30s.
Methane/propane are certainly cleaner burning, but the tanks impose huge space constraints on vehicle design and the distribution and refueling issues are huge. A big gasoline spill is an environmental mess; an LNG spill in an area with a storm drain system is an incredibly effective way to think about blowing up a city!
You said "but far worse than the hybrid cars which use batteries and a small gasoline enginer for eletricity generation which are 90% efficient."
I'm afraid you're confusing apples with oranges. 90% efficiency may be in the conversion of electrical energy into motion, but that begs the question of where the electricity came from in the first place. There's no portable heat engine that's going to get above ~50%; the availability lost through combustion alone is going to guarantee that. In fact, the Diesel engine beats the Otto (i.e, gasoline) engine in efficiency pretty handily, but it isn't going to get you to 90%.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been endlessly discussed in the comp.os.os2.* newsgroups. The real question is whether the System Object Model can be ported off the platform - especially since IBM has now essentially dropped all development of the technology. The consensus (granted, of outsiders) is that trying to do so would be a nightmare.
We can all dream, though!
Sure; but I could do something about it without digging into the innards. And I sure could move/deleta any desktop object I wanted, unlike the wired-in inability to delete, say, the IE icon on a WinXX desktop.
I can't argue esthetics are unimportant, but there's nothing more aggravating than a pretty desktop with *NO* functionality, IMHO.
(Non-)Intuitive? What isn't? Explain to me again how 'drag the disk icon to the garbage can' intuitively translates into 'eject the floppy' when dragging a file icon to it means 'erase the file?'
Falling back on intuition is a dangerous game to play, IMHO - the real issue is how hard it is to learn; how many cues you get when you need them. After all, a serious fraction of the WPS interface ended up being copied by MS-Win, and everyone was willing to learn it then.
And, for me, the WPS is still my favorite working environment.......
*Warning* Shameless plug about to follow: From "The Electric Vehicle Unplugged", Technology Review:
The energy density of lead-acid batteries-the kind used in conventional cars for startup and auxiliary power-is about 35 watt-hours per kilogram, less than one-three-hundredth that of gasoline, which is about 12,000 watt-hours per kilogram. As a rule of thumb, 1 gallon of gasoline, weighing about 8 pounds, has the same energy content as a ton of lead-acid batteries.
IOW, gasoline has a rather incredible energy density, particularly when you consider the fact that it can be (relatively) safely handled by the public. In fact, you have to work pretty hard to make it explode.
As has been cited elsewhere, the infrastructure today is the thing that governs the fuel that we use. Cost of delivery is a real fraction of that cost, and setting up another infrastructure to handle some new fuel is a real bear. That's why there's so much work going into figuring out how to convert liquid fuels (with their high energy density) into something that a fuel cell, which doesn't incur the thermodynamic losses inherent in combustion, can use.
Otherwise, the only really credible mechanism for increasing fuel efficiency using an "alternative" fuel is the diesel engine - stratified charge diesels can achieve +45% efficiencies, while the Otto cycle pretty much tops out in the high 30s.
Methane/propane are certainly cleaner burning, but the tanks impose huge space constraints on vehicle design and the distribution and refueling issues are huge. A big gasoline spill is an environmental mess; an LNG spill in an area with a storm drain system is an incredibly effective way to think about blowing up a city!
I'm afraid you're confusing apples with oranges. 90% efficiency may be in the conversion of electrical energy into motion, but that begs the question of where the electricity came from in the first place. There's no portable heat engine that's going to get above ~50%; the availability lost through combustion alone is going to guarantee that. In fact, the Diesel engine beats the Otto (i.e, gasoline) engine in efficiency pretty handily, but it isn't going to get you to 90%.