You can plug any USB keyboard into any Mac (including MacBooks) with a USB port.
That's what I do at home, but...
1. That would pretty much eliminate this product, no?
2. That gets to be a hassle with laptops. My boss thought I was really weird carrying around a keyboard with my Macbook... until I explained the problem.
3. I bought a Happy Hacking keyboard, some time back, on the advice of some slashdot geek like you. Complete waste of money. I think I gave it to one of my kids' friends. The keys themselves are nice, but it tries to be TOO small. It needs at least another row and column of full sized keys to eliminate the need for the damn Fn key and let them make the arrow keys full-sized.
Indeed. They're making a product to sell to people who value style over everything, so of course it's going to ignore everything but style. I understand why channeling Jobs is profitable, I just don't give a damn for the products that result.
And it's not the details of the design. Apple's laptop keyboards without that *specific* design were just as painful, even if they were fractionally thicker.
There are thin keyboards that are far superior. They (and Apple) need to get some IBM Thinkpad DNA in their products, or get in bed with Logitech if that's too scary. Logitech seems to be able to make thin keyboards that feel more like a Thinkpad than a Macbook.
Ever use a really good keyboard, one with microswitch keys? The frame the keys are set in is totally solid. You can't make them all that thin, but this thing has even less reason for thinness than a laptop. The only reason to make it thin is style, and compromising ergonomics for style is exactly the problem I'm talking about.
Apple keyboards are great if you want to really hammer your RSI. I can't work intensively on my laptop for more than 10 or 15 minutes without significant pain.
If it wasn't for OS X you wouldn't find an Apple product released post-1997 in my house - their design is full of stylish crap like this. I'd probably still have my old "Beige G4" for running my Scanjet, but otherwise... it's all about the software.
The computer packs the usual Intel Atom internals, and puts them in a thin metal case with a built-in keyboard with Apple-style individually inset keys...
So now you have a lousy keyboard you can't replace with a decent one. It's bad enough on my laptop, but at least there's an excuse for lowering the form factor of the keys way too far... here, there's simply no logical reason for it other than style.
Yep, it's Apple style all right. If it doesn't come with OS X, why put up with the abuse?
If I want to run OS X on my "Beige G4" because it's got a better video card than a Mac mini, or run 3d at 85 Hz because that's what my monitor can handle, that should be on me.
Apple today emphasizes style at the expense of basic functionality (like their passive-aggressive relationship with multiple buttons on pointing devices) and making devices so small they compromise cooling (apparently the reason the G4 Mac mini's USB power is throttled to the point it can't even charge an iPod Shuffle). They have huge holes in their product line that simply put people off (they haven't had a professional desktop since the Beige G3). Jobs is a mixed package... like everyone, he has blind spots, and his tight control means those become Apple's blind spots. I really think Apple would make better products with a little less Jobs in the mix.
Exactly: we don't know if real time is running at real time. If we're being simulated post-singularity using reversible computations (to provide an unbounded number of simulated frames by running the simulation slower as the energy density of the universe decreases) real time would be running asymptotically slower than real time over time, but we'd never be able to detect that even after we start running our own reversible computation engine to computationally extend our own apparent time into the apparent real time heat death of the simulated universe inside the real heat death of the real universe. You can apply a thought experiment similar to Cantor's diagonal proof to show that this system can be indefinitely nested, if the real universe is unbounded and uniform, even when you bring relativistic communication limits into play.
If the physics and rendering rate are higher than the refresh rate, you'll get even lower latency
That would only be the case if the physics was updated in sync with the raster.
Any part of the screen can be up to a whole frame behind the physics frame. The amount any point on the screen is behind the physics frame... the latency... will vary over time depending on the "beat" between the two frame rates, and the latency for any point on the screen will be the same whether screen is synced or not. Unless the latency is so low that a whole frame latency (the worst case) is undetectable, you WILL see artifacts from this beat. If you can't detect any such artifacts, then any latency you think you're suffering from is all in your head.
I'm not talking about vsync, I don't care whether you're double-buffering or single-buffering, or using vsync or not. I'm talking about the highest useful frame rate, and about the structure of the simulated environment in the game.
1. It doesn't matter if your frame rate is higher than the display rate. You're running at an insane refresh, so you can possibly benefit from FPS rates over 60-85, but that doesn't apply for most people.
2. If the game engine (physics frame rate) is slower than the FPS (rendering frame rate), then nothing is happening in the "missing frames" anyway.
3. If the game engine is faster than the FPS, then you're wasting processing simulating events that are just going to cause the player grief.
Conclusion: the lowest latency will occur when the refresh rate, physics frame, and rendering frame are in sync.
Vsync does add latency, because you have to wait for a whole frame to be drawn before you can show it.
But because your eyes are only focused on a small part of the screen at a time this doesn't matter, because the part of the screen you're focussed on will not be refreshed any faster than the screen refresh rate.
I use a CRT, at 120Hz.
Then you would be best served by having the game (not just the display) synced to that rate.
Q: Should I go with RAID-0 Raptors for maximum speed? A: No, most of you have no need for RAID, especially with the sorry state of onboard RAID controllers on most of the motherboards designed for home use. If you insist on using RAID then read up on it well in advance and use RAID 5 or RAID 1. RAID 0 is just asking for trouble and you gain little actual benefit from it.
If you're using RAID and you read up on it, unless you're running a datacenter or just archiving porn you'll leave RAID 5 on the shelf. It's (N-1) times as space efficient for an N-disk system, but less reliable (the chance of a second disk failure during a rebuild is getting higher all the time, and don't forget that you probably bought all those drives from the same batch) and lower performance. Go with RAID 1 or "RAID 1+0".
You're running on a multitasking operating system, using graphics drivers that should be multithreaded. Also, with a P4, you may be running at a faster clock rate but you're running with a longer pipeline and higher branch latency... and by now you've got lower memory bandwidth than the latest multicores which makes those cache misses after a pipeline stall even tastier.
If your display is running at 85 Hz you will never see an image more than once every 11.8 ms, whether the game is generating 85, 110, or 170 frames per second. If you're using an LCD, you will never see an image more than once every 16.7 ms.
If the game is synced to the display rate, then the latency between the virtual time in the game and what's displayed on the screen is zero. If it's not, then on average the latency will be half the game-time frame rate. You are *increasing* the latency by running at a faster rate.
Meanwhile, of course, your reaction time is measured in *hundreds* of milliseconds, and you're processing many cues over several seconds before you can react effectively to them.
Actually, you're better off running the game with its FPS synced to your display's refresh rate, because redrawing pixels that will never be displayed is a complete waste of CPU power.
Will they even consider requiring notifications about more important DRM like Microsoft's trusted media path, tilt bits, and "windows genuine advantage"?
And yet the same companies that were trying to scam hobbyists into paying business rates are trying to scam websites into paying them twice for the same traffic.
Could be, could be, so perhaps the Groklaw community has an opportunity here, if they can pull together and set up a broader based site that's not focussed on a single lawsuit.
But I've seen and been a part of so many groups like this, though, and I've found that once the original cause is won or lost they rarely hang together.
Drawing a line under the SCO trial and archiving the whole thing will at least retain that focus for a while, and provide a resource for "the next time". The current "net neutrality" debate is awfully familiar to people involved in COSUARD in its day, but where is alt.cosuard now?
Speaking of lawsuits, how would you rate NYCL's coverage of the RIAA's legal campaign by comparison?
Slashdot Mirror
Well at least if it sucks they'll be able to call Ballmer a "looser" without being ungrammatical.
Summary: learn how to not fucking pound the keys, and the Apple keyboard will work just fine.
I'll take that up with my physical therapist, but I don't think her advice is going to change.
You can plug any USB keyboard into any Mac (including MacBooks) with a USB port.
That's what I do at home, but...
1. That would pretty much eliminate this product, no?
2. That gets to be a hassle with laptops. My boss thought I was really weird carrying around a keyboard with my Macbook... until I explained the problem.
3. I bought a Happy Hacking keyboard, some time back, on the advice of some slashdot geek like you. Complete waste of money. I think I gave it to one of my kids' friends. The keys themselves are nice, but it tries to be TOO small. It needs at least another row and column of full sized keys to eliminate the need for the damn Fn key and let them make the arrow keys full-sized.
Indeed. They're making a product to sell to people who value style over everything, so of course it's going to ignore everything but style. I understand why channeling Jobs is profitable, I just don't give a damn for the products that result.
And it's not the details of the design. Apple's laptop keyboards without that *specific* design were just as painful, even if they were fractionally thicker.
There are thin keyboards that are far superior. They (and Apple) need to get some IBM Thinkpad DNA in their products, or get in bed with Logitech if that's too scary. Logitech seems to be able to make thin keyboards that feel more like a Thinkpad than a Macbook.
Been there, done that, got the crippling pain. You can keep 'em.
Ever use a really good keyboard, one with microswitch keys? The frame the keys are set in is totally solid. You can't make them all that thin, but this thing has even less reason for thinness than a laptop. The only reason to make it thin is style, and compromising ergonomics for style is exactly the problem I'm talking about.
Apple keyboards are great if you want to really hammer your RSI. I can't work intensively on my laptop for more than 10 or 15 minutes without significant pain.
If it wasn't for OS X you wouldn't find an Apple product released post-1997 in my house - their design is full of stylish crap like this. I'd probably still have my old "Beige G4" for running my Scanjet, but otherwise... it's all about the software.
Oh, you mean that thing they used to have, kind of like Youtube with feedback turned off? Does anyone still use that?
Everyone's channeling Steve Jobs' these days.
So now you have a lousy keyboard you can't replace with a decent one. It's bad enough on my laptop, but at least there's an excuse for lowering the form factor of the keys way too far... here, there's simply no logical reason for it other than style.
Yep, it's Apple style all right. If it doesn't come with OS X, why put up with the abuse?
If I want to run OS X on my "Beige G4" because it's got a better video card than a Mac mini, or run 3d at 85 Hz because that's what my monitor can handle, that should be on me.
Apple today emphasizes style at the expense of basic functionality (like their passive-aggressive relationship with multiple buttons on pointing devices) and making devices so small they compromise cooling (apparently the reason the G4 Mac mini's USB power is throttled to the point it can't even charge an iPod Shuffle). They have huge holes in their product line that simply put people off (they haven't had a professional desktop since the Beige G3). Jobs is a mixed package... like everyone, he has blind spots, and his tight control means those become Apple's blind spots. I really think Apple would make better products with a little less Jobs in the mix.
Upgrade your head.
Exactly: we don't know if real time is running at real time. If we're being simulated post-singularity using reversible computations (to provide an unbounded number of simulated frames by running the simulation slower as the energy density of the universe decreases) real time would be running asymptotically slower than real time over time, but we'd never be able to detect that even after we start running our own reversible computation engine to computationally extend our own apparent time into the apparent real time heat death of the simulated universe inside the real heat death of the real universe. You can apply a thought experiment similar to Cantor's diagonal proof to show that this system can be indefinitely nested, if the real universe is unbounded and uniform, even when you bring relativistic communication limits into play.
More important is having a system which can achieve a consistent FPS.
Most important is having a constant FPS that matches the screen refresh rate, to avoid "beat" phenomena.
If the physics and rendering rate are higher than the refresh rate, you'll get even lower latency
That would only be the case if the physics was updated in sync with the raster.
Any part of the screen can be up to a whole frame behind the physics frame. The amount any point on the screen is behind the physics frame... the latency... will vary over time depending on the "beat" between the two frame rates, and the latency for any point on the screen will be the same whether screen is synced or not. Unless the latency is so low that a whole frame latency (the worst case) is undetectable, you WILL see artifacts from this beat. If you can't detect any such artifacts, then any latency you think you're suffering from is all in your head.
I'm not talking about vsync, I don't care whether you're double-buffering or single-buffering, or using vsync or not. I'm talking about the highest useful frame rate, and about the structure of the simulated environment in the game.
1. It doesn't matter if your frame rate is higher than the display rate. You're running at an insane refresh, so you can possibly benefit from FPS rates over 60-85, but that doesn't apply for most people.
2. If the game engine (physics frame rate) is slower than the FPS (rendering frame rate), then nothing is happening in the "missing frames" anyway.
3. If the game engine is faster than the FPS, then you're wasting processing simulating events that are just going to cause the player grief.
Conclusion: the lowest latency will occur when the refresh rate, physics frame, and rendering frame are in sync.
Vsync does add latency, because you have to wait for a whole frame to be drawn before you can show it.
But because your eyes are only focused on a small part of the screen at a time this doesn't matter, because the part of the screen you're focussed on will not be refreshed any faster than the screen refresh rate.
I use a CRT, at 120Hz.
Then you would be best served by having the game (not just the display) synced to that rate.
Q: Should I go with RAID-0 Raptors for maximum speed?
A: No, most of you have no need for RAID, especially with the sorry state of onboard RAID controllers on most of the motherboards designed for home use. If you insist on using RAID then read up on it well in advance and use RAID 5 or RAID 1. RAID 0 is just asking for trouble and you gain little actual benefit from it.
If you're using RAID and you read up on it, unless you're running a datacenter or just archiving porn you'll leave RAID 5 on the shelf. It's (N-1) times as space efficient for an N-disk system, but less reliable (the chance of a second disk failure during a rebuild is getting higher all the time, and don't forget that you probably bought all those drives from the same batch) and lower performance. Go with RAID 1 or "RAID 1+0".
You're running on a multitasking operating system, using graphics drivers that should be multithreaded. Also, with a P4, you may be running at a faster clock rate but you're running with a longer pipeline and higher branch latency... and by now you've got lower memory bandwidth than the latest multicores which makes those cache misses after a pipeline stall even tastier.
If your display is running at 85 Hz you will never see an image more than once every 11.8 ms, whether the game is generating 85, 110, or 170 frames per second. If you're using an LCD, you will never see an image more than once every 16.7 ms.
If the game is synced to the display rate, then the latency between the virtual time in the game and what's displayed on the screen is zero. If it's not, then on average the latency will be half the game-time frame rate. You are *increasing* the latency by running at a faster rate.
Meanwhile, of course, your reaction time is measured in *hundreds* of milliseconds, and you're processing many cues over several seconds before you can react effectively to them.
Actually, you're better off running the game with its FPS synced to your display's refresh rate, because redrawing pixels that will never be displayed is a complete waste of CPU power.
Will they even consider requiring notifications about more important DRM like Microsoft's trusted media path, tilt bits, and "windows genuine advantage"?
Oh, was that a rhetorical question?
And yet the same companies that were trying to scam hobbyists into paying business rates are trying to scam websites into paying them twice for the same traffic.
Could be, could be, so perhaps the Groklaw community has an opportunity here, if they can pull together and set up a broader based site that's not focussed on a single lawsuit.
But I've seen and been a part of so many groups like this, though, and I've found that once the original cause is won or lost they rarely hang together.
Drawing a line under the SCO trial and archiving the whole thing will at least retain that focus for a while, and provide a resource for "the next time". The current "net neutrality" debate is awfully familiar to people involved in COSUARD in its day, but where is alt.cosuard now?
Speaking of lawsuits, how would you rate NYCL's coverage of the RIAA's legal campaign by comparison?
Could be, could be, but I'm pretty sure they didn't list two hour battery life on the box my own Macbook Pro came in.