When I first started visiting Slashdot, the articles were much more geek-friendly and much less anti-Microsoft. In the 3-4ish years I've been reading Slashdot, it's definitely seemed that it's devolved into a MS bashing forum.
One or two Microsoft stories are published everyday, no matter how insignificant the news is. Even if the news is a good thing, typically the submitter of the story puts a negative spin on it (like today's submission). Of course everyone jumps in and bashes away, not only at Microsoft, but at anyone who tries to speak positively about Microsoft. It doesn't do well to encourage intelligent discussion--anyone who is happy using Microsoft products and speaks up about it around here quickly becomes bitter and defensive. Or they leave.
Slashdot nowadays is quite similar to the media in the middle east. My grandfather lived in Dubai for 8 or 9 years, and he was amazed that the newspapers had an article about "The Jews" on the front page, every day. The Dubai media never referred to Israel. "The Jews" were always killing Muslim children, subverting the government, doing-random-very-crappy-thing, etc. The media was breeding hate among the people.
The big difference between Slashdot and Dubai is that the Dubai government was intentionally making people hate to distract them from shady things it was doing, and Slashdot's de-evolution is (probably) not intended. It definitely seems that the editors have got some bug up their ass about Microsoft, but I think they're just publishing what kicks up the most response rather than trying to fan the flames.
I think it's because Slashdot has become the epicenter of a pro-linux geek subculture. In this subculture, it's cool to hate Microsoft. Folks want to fit in somewhere, so they come to Slashdot and bash Microsoft.
Linus said in this interview: "I've tried to stay out of the Microsoft debate. If you start doing things because you hate others and want to screw them over the end result is bad." I don't think he hates Microsoft. He likes Linux.
My only problem with these extensions is that they're only available on that graphics board model. Until they are approved and standardized by the ARB, there isn't any garauntee that my code will run on a different machine.
If I were writing a game, my options are go back to writing specialized code for various graphics boards (what we had before GL or DX became popular), or wait until a standard is published. DX tends to get new features into its standard quicker.
My preference is to keep graphics-card dependant code out of my projects. That's why I'm using a standard API in the first place.
I'll repose the original question: But what happens when DirectX doesn't do what the programmer wants/needs it to do?
The programmer is screwed with either API. Sure the hardware company can extend either API to its heart's content, but that doesn't help a programmer who needs a feature right now.
The development process isn't too different with DirectX--Nvidia had some whiz-band ideas so they talked to Microsoft. DX 8.0 was released. ATI had similar functionality for their hardware, but didn't agree with Nvidia. They went to MS and DX 8.1 was released. Microsoft talked to them both and is going to release 9, itegrating 8.0 and 8.1 features. The architechture review board for OpenGL does the same thing.
Microsoft doesn't make all the decisions for the industry and cram it down the industry's throat. MS talks to all the relevant companies (hardware and software) as part of the feedback loop for DX. Microsoft/Nvidia's Cg language that was in the news a while back is an example of that. The advantage is that Microsoft has tightened the feedback loop so its turnaround time is less.
http://www.opengl.org lists 1.4 as the latest version. Guess I was wrong about that. I'll still stand by my original point though: the turn-around time from feature request to releasing a new API has been shorter with DirectX. OpenGL 1.0 was relesed in July of 1992. There have been four revisions since (1.1,.2,.3 and.4). DirectX has had twice the major releases in half the time.
But what happens when DirectX doesn't do what the programmer wants/needs it to do?
This won't happen too often. DirectX is crazy feature rich. In fact, overly so for some:)
You need to realize the OpenGL isn't an open source project. You can't add more stuff to the API if you find that it's lacking. The reason is that you can't add your new functionality to the hardware, which is the whole point in using OpenGL in the first place. So, you still have to wait for the next version of OpenGL to come out, and graphics-cards manufacturers to build cards with it in mind.
Whether coding in GL or DirectX, if the library doesn't do something you want, you have the exact same options: wait for the next version, or hand-code your functionality from fundamental functions.
This is one spot were DirectX has a big advantage over OpenGL. DirectX is designed by only one party, rather than a big committee of different companies who want different features. As such, DirectX has a much faster development cycle, and gets improvements quite often. The last big improvement to OpenGL was released in 1998, version 1.2. Four years is a long time in the world of 3D graphics.
You can use DirectX in C if you want. It's a little bulkier, but certainly manageable. This link describes the biggest change you'll have to deal with when going from C++ to C with DirectX. The example from that page goes like this: g_pDP->Initialize( NULL, DirectPlayMessageHandler, 0 );
To make the same method call from C, use the following syntax. The conventional name for the vtable pointer is lpVtbl.
As for your question: no, I doubt it. The C vs. C++ thing isn't really a problem since nearly all modern compilers support both. They'd choose OpenGL over DX (or vice versa) for different reasons. If you were to build a 3-D engine, you could expose a C or C++ API using either library under the hood.
One could just as easily claim that open source doesn't have the resources to research and develop fast, flexible, complete, or efficient software systems.
Open-source has one resource: programmers. That's all you need to build a fast, super-tight piece of software. OSS doesn't have money, which is what you need a lot of times in the software industry. Another great example is open source games vs. commercial games. Commercial game companies have artists, musicians, directors and animators. If an open source game has one or two of these sorts of people, they're really lucky. Generally though, the developers working on the game lack these skills, and they end up with shitty game. That game may have a great 3D engine, or super-clean multiplayer model, but it'll still look like shit and lack content. Content is what really makes or breaks a game in the industry.
I guess I'm trying to say that there will always be a need for commercial software, regardless of what RMS says. I'm not saying that OSS doesn't have a place, and that folks should dump Linux/BSD/Gimp/XBill for something expensive. The world of software development would move far too slow if there wasn't any money in it.
I'll amend my argument then. Open-source doesn't NEED crap. But it certainly benefits greatly from having closed-source shops doing a lot of their work for them. Open-source is largely a bunch of programmers who work on a project because they want to. Those same programmers aren't too interested in interviewing 100's of people off the street to see what they think of a prototype user interface. Those same programmers don't spend money hiring technical communication folks to design user interfaces. Those same programmers make the software look like how they want, and as such, it can be very difficult for non-programmers to use. Or worse, they're only interested in doing the nifty algorithmic work under the hood, and don't bother thinking about UI at all.
Let's #define "Random J User" to be "Random J User Who We're Targeting With Our Software" When you're talking about operating systems (unless that OS isn't intended for desktop use), email software, word processors, games, etc, then the new Random J User is anyone who uses a computer casually. An intuitive UI is extremely important for this audience, and as such the old Random J User is fine metric for this software. GCC doesn't need to worry about that metric because its "Random J User" is "C Programmer Working On A Unix-derivative".
Ximian realizes this, which is why they designed their software after Outlook. Outlook's interface is awesome for its audience, which happens to be the same audience Evolution is targeting. Ximian didn't have the capability to build a unique UI that was as effective, so they stole one.
I use XP's Remote Desktop over a dsl connection quite regularly. In school, I used X remotely (again, over a dsl connection). Subjectively, I think that Remote Desktop is quite a bit smoother. I can't quote specific numbers or anything, but I'm much happier with the responsiveness and ease of use of RD over X.
X is still more versatile (I don't think one Windows box can have more than one RD connection to it at once), but MS is catching up.
I see Evolution as a great example that open-source cannot be end-all solution to the world's software problems. A big reason is usability: open-source doesn't have the resources to research and develop effective UI. Usability experts, consumer studies, prototype testing and well-designed feedback loops are all needed to design user interfaces that are intuitive and efficient.
It takes for-profit companies, with a lot of money to throw at the problem, to design original and effective UI's. Evolution neatly copies Microsoft Outlook's user experience. It's a good thing that MS put all that work into designing the UI, and didn't give Ximian any guff over using it.
From the cover-my-ass dept: I'll admit that there are some exceptions. But by and large, the UI on open-source sucks unless they are copied from for-profit software, such as Outlook (for Evolution), NEXTStep or Windows (for various Window Managers), Wordperfect/MSWord (various word processors). And before somebody says that you don't need UI--Random J User cannot effectively use text-console programs without a lot of training.
You (being a potential customer) do not have to upgrade your software every 2-3 years. Many enterprises are still running WindowsNT 4, and quite happy doing so. (Scott McNealy refuses to give Microsoft any more money, so all of Sun's secretaries are still running Win95) If I were to deploy a Windows infrastructure in my business, I would get the current latest-and-greatest, and then keep it as long as possible. Only when MS comes out with products with features that are really needed and/or justify the cost of upgrading will I upgrade.
I do the same thing with my personal computers. I ran Windows98 until it didn't suit me, at which point I upgraded to Windows2000. I skipped over 98SE, ME, and NT4. I ran Windows2000 until very recently, when I needed XP to do remote desktop. If I didn't need remote desktop, I wouldn't have bothered. I'm pretty sure I'll run XP for a goodly long time.
I imagine that's about as often or less often than a typical Linux user upgrades their machine. Unless a business did the upgrading by themselves (that is, without purchasing from RedHat), then I don't really see why it's so much cheaper. Even if they did do everything themselves, then they'll need a very Linux-savy IT crew to rollout the upgrade. A Linux-savy IT crew isn't very cheap.
Some folks like having brand-new cars. I've never been able to afford that, but a lot of folks I work with can. They buy a new car every 3 years because it's what they want, and they can do it without going broke. I can't really argue with them:)
I just posted this in the poll's discussion, but it's relevant here as well: Unlike previous attempts at pen-based computing, MS has actually put work into making the pen work like a real pen, rather than just a mouse. Newtons, Palms, and graphic tablets only use them as mousing devices or rudimentary text input (because those devices lack a keyboard).
The ink on a Tablet is editable--you can insert lines, italicize it, spellcheck it, and use the other end of the pen to erase. All while leaving the ink as ink, and not converting it to plaintext first. It's much less constraining if you're taking notes, brainstorming, or authoring. After you're done doodling, then you convert it to text and publish in your favorite document format.
The ink and the really neat stuff you can do with it took a lot of work, both from MSResearch and from the product development guys. That's the innovation.
I'm a programmer, so the Tablet won't help me much with my regular day-to-day work. I do take notes, go to meetings, and produce my own personal content enough that I'd like to get one though.
I've had the opportunity to play with a Tablet PC on occasion, and they're pretty damn spiffy. I'd get one over a standard laptop like the Dell Perspiron:)
The preprocessor replaces the macro before the code is actually compiled. If your optimizer then reordered all the fields in the struct, offsetof screws up as well.
The compiler can't really reorder fields of a class/struct because the programmer could potentially address directly into the class without using the variable. There would be some trouble with that if the programmer couldn't predict where the data was going to be.
I actually read the decree, and I'm glad somebody else out there did as well. A good summary of the opinion, and of the case to date, is available here. It was published by the Court today as well. Everybody should probably read it before they bitch about how Microsoft won and that the DoJ is in bed with them.
My solution to making my PC quite was very simple: I built a big-ass sound-insulating box for it. The box itself is made of particle board, lined with acoustic ceiling tile and carpet. I cut fan holes in the side of my original case, and mounted three fans to blow directly onto the CPU, memory and graphic board.
The fans on the side of my case pull in air from a 20" long carpet-lined duct--it acts a lot like a car muffler. The air moves through, but the carpet absorbs nearly all the sound (the sound needs to make two 90 degree turns to escape the air channel). There is a similar duct in the back of the case for outgoing air.
My 'new' case has more airflow than the computer originally had, so my internal temps are only a little higher than they used to be. I built the box with a weekend and ~$25. Now I can leave my computer on all the time without making my ears ring. If you've got access to a wood shop, it's a very effective way to make a quiet PC.
Well, if you corrected him calmly and intelligently, you'd be modded up. Then thousands of people would read your post and know the truth. It happens all the time--it's a great way to stimulate discussion here on slashdot. If everyone was as elitist as you, slashdot wouldn't be much fun.
ignorance does equality stupidity
BTW, give your posts a once-over in discussions where you're calling other folks retards.
The largest price cut was a 53% reduction in price. I think this was on the 1.7 GHz Pentium4M. It went from $508 to $241. The 26-53% is the range of pricecuts that were made (each model dropped by a different percentage).
I've had several service snafus with Qwest, and it boggled my mind that every single person I talked too was as incompetant as they were. And, in the end, I was horribly ripped off.
Unfortunately, the broadband in the neighborhood (AT&T cable modem service is available 3 or 4 blocks down the road) is Qwest copper...and they won't let you have DSL if you're not a Qwest phone customer.
If you have a choice, never, never give Qwest a dime.
Thanks for clearing that up. Isn't the heat from fires and stoves mostly IR? A campfire doesn't emit much visible light, but it emits a lot of energy that's very warming.
I would reckon the common misconception comes from elementary school teachers...that's where I got it:)
Slashdot Mirror
No, longer posts are better. If I had some mod points I'd give them to you :)
When I first started visiting Slashdot, the articles were much more geek-friendly and much less anti-Microsoft. In the 3-4ish years I've been reading Slashdot, it's definitely seemed that it's devolved into a MS bashing forum.
One or two Microsoft stories are published everyday, no matter how insignificant the news is. Even if the news is a good thing, typically the submitter of the story puts a negative spin on it (like today's submission). Of course everyone jumps in and bashes away, not only at Microsoft, but at anyone who tries to speak positively about Microsoft. It doesn't do well to encourage intelligent discussion--anyone who is happy using Microsoft products and speaks up about it around here quickly becomes bitter and defensive. Or they leave.
Slashdot nowadays is quite similar to the media in the middle east. My grandfather lived in Dubai for 8 or 9 years, and he was amazed that the newspapers had an article about "The Jews" on the front page, every day. The Dubai media never referred to Israel. "The Jews" were always killing Muslim children, subverting the government, doing-random-very-crappy-thing, etc. The media was breeding hate among the people.
The big difference between Slashdot and Dubai is that the Dubai government was intentionally making people hate to distract them from shady things it was doing, and Slashdot's de-evolution is (probably) not intended. It definitely seems that the editors have got some bug up their ass about Microsoft, but I think they're just publishing what kicks up the most response rather than trying to fan the flames.
I think it's because Slashdot has become the epicenter of a pro-linux geek subculture. In this subculture, it's cool to hate Microsoft. Folks want to fit in somewhere, so they come to Slashdot and bash Microsoft.
Linus said in this interview:
"I've tried to stay out of the Microsoft debate. If you start doing things because you hate others and want to screw them over the end result is bad."
I don't think he hates Microsoft. He likes Linux.
My only problem with these extensions is that they're only available on that graphics board model. Until they are approved and standardized by the ARB, there isn't any garauntee that my code will run on a different machine.
If I were writing a game, my options are go back to writing specialized code for various graphics boards (what we had before GL or DX became popular), or wait until a standard is published. DX tends to get new features into its standard quicker.
My preference is to keep graphics-card dependant code out of my projects. That's why I'm using a standard API in the first place.
I'll repose the original question:
But what happens when DirectX doesn't do what the programmer wants/needs it to do?
The programmer is screwed with either API. Sure the hardware company can extend either API to its heart's content, but that doesn't help a programmer who needs a feature right now.
The development process isn't too different with DirectX--Nvidia had some whiz-band ideas so they talked to Microsoft. DX 8.0 was released. ATI had similar functionality for their hardware, but didn't agree with Nvidia. They went to MS and DX 8.1 was released. Microsoft talked to them both and is going to release 9, itegrating 8.0 and 8.1 features. The architechture review board for OpenGL does the same thing.
Microsoft doesn't make all the decisions for the industry and cram it down the industry's throat. MS talks to all the relevant companies (hardware and software) as part of the feedback loop for DX. Microsoft/Nvidia's Cg language that was in the news a while back is an example of that. The advantage is that Microsoft has tightened the feedback loop so its turnaround time is less.
http://www.opengl.org lists 1.4 as the latest version. Guess I was wrong about that. I'll still stand by my original point though: the turn-around time from feature request to releasing a new API has been shorter with DirectX. OpenGL 1.0 was relesed in July of 1992. There have been four revisions since (1.1, .2, .3 and .4). DirectX has had twice the major releases in half the time.
But what happens when DirectX doesn't do what the programmer wants/needs it to do?
:)
This won't happen too often. DirectX is crazy feature rich. In fact, overly so for some
You need to realize the OpenGL isn't an open source project. You can't add more stuff to the API if you find that it's lacking. The reason is that you can't add your new functionality to the hardware, which is the whole point in using OpenGL in the first place. So, you still have to wait for the next version of OpenGL to come out, and graphics-cards manufacturers to build cards with it in mind.
Whether coding in GL or DirectX, if the library doesn't do something you want, you have the exact same options: wait for the next version, or hand-code your functionality from fundamental functions.
This is one spot were DirectX has a big advantage over OpenGL. DirectX is designed by only one party, rather than a big committee of different companies who want different features. As such, DirectX has a much faster development cycle, and gets improvements quite often. The last big improvement to OpenGL was released in 1998, version 1.2. Four years is a long time in the world of 3D graphics.
You can use DirectX in C if you want. It's a little bulkier, but certainly manageable. This link describes the biggest change you'll have to deal with when going from C++ to C with DirectX. The example from that page goes like this:
g_pDP->Initialize( NULL, DirectPlayMessageHandler, 0 );
To make the same method call from C, use the following syntax. The conventional name for the vtable pointer is lpVtbl.
g_pDP->lpVtbl->Initialize(g_pDP,NULL, DirectPlayMessageHandler, 0);
As for your question: no, I doubt it. The C vs. C++ thing isn't really a problem since nearly all modern compilers support both. They'd choose OpenGL over DX (or vice versa) for different reasons. If you were to build a 3-D engine, you could expose a C or C++ API using either library under the hood.
One could just as easily claim that open source doesn't have the resources to research and develop fast, flexible, complete, or efficient software systems.
Open-source has one resource: programmers. That's all you need to build a fast, super-tight piece of software. OSS doesn't have money, which is what you need a lot of times in the software industry. Another great example is open source games vs. commercial games. Commercial game companies have artists, musicians, directors and animators. If an open source game has one or two of these sorts of people, they're really lucky. Generally though, the developers working on the game lack these skills, and they end up with shitty game. That game may have a great 3D engine, or super-clean multiplayer model, but it'll still look like shit and lack content. Content is what really makes or breaks a game in the industry.
I guess I'm trying to say that there will always be a need for commercial software, regardless of what RMS says. I'm not saying that OSS doesn't have a place, and that folks should dump Linux/BSD/Gimp/XBill for something expensive. The world of software development would move far too slow if there wasn't any money in it.
I'll amend my argument then. Open-source doesn't NEED crap. But it certainly benefits greatly from having closed-source shops doing a lot of their work for them. Open-source is largely a bunch of programmers who work on a project because they want to. Those same programmers aren't too interested in interviewing 100's of people off the street to see what they think of a prototype user interface. Those same programmers don't spend money hiring technical communication folks to design user interfaces. Those same programmers make the software look like how they want, and as such, it can be very difficult for non-programmers to use. Or worse, they're only interested in doing the nifty algorithmic work under the hood, and don't bother thinking about UI at all.
Let's #define "Random J User" to be "Random J User Who We're Targeting With Our Software" When you're talking about operating systems (unless that OS isn't intended for desktop use), email software, word processors, games, etc, then the new Random J User is anyone who uses a computer casually. An intuitive UI is extremely important for this audience, and as such the old Random J User is fine metric for this software. GCC doesn't need to worry about that metric because its "Random J User" is "C Programmer Working On A Unix-derivative".
Ximian realizes this, which is why they designed their software after Outlook. Outlook's interface is awesome for its audience, which happens to be the same audience Evolution is targeting. Ximian didn't have the capability to build a unique UI that was as effective, so they stole one.
I use XP's Remote Desktop over a dsl connection quite regularly. In school, I used X remotely (again, over a dsl connection). Subjectively, I think that Remote Desktop is quite a bit smoother. I can't quote specific numbers or anything, but I'm much happier with the responsiveness and ease of use of RD over X.
X is still more versatile (I don't think one Windows box can have more than one RD connection to it at once), but MS is catching up.
I see Evolution as a great example that open-source cannot be end-all solution to the world's software problems. A big reason is usability: open-source doesn't have the resources to research and develop effective UI. Usability experts, consumer studies, prototype testing and well-designed feedback loops are all needed to design user interfaces that are intuitive and efficient.
It takes for-profit companies, with a lot of money to throw at the problem, to design original and effective UI's. Evolution neatly copies Microsoft Outlook's user experience. It's a good thing that MS put all that work into designing the UI, and didn't give Ximian any guff over using it.
From the cover-my-ass dept: I'll admit that there are some exceptions. But by and large, the UI on open-source sucks unless they are copied from for-profit software, such as Outlook (for Evolution), NEXTStep or Windows (for various Window Managers), Wordperfect/MSWord (various word processors). And before somebody says that you don't need UI--Random J User cannot effectively use text-console programs without a lot of training.
You (being a potential customer) do not have to upgrade your software every 2-3 years. Many enterprises are still running WindowsNT 4, and quite happy doing so. (Scott McNealy refuses to give Microsoft any more money, so all of Sun's secretaries are still running Win95) If I were to deploy a Windows infrastructure in my business, I would get the current latest-and-greatest, and then keep it as long as possible. Only when MS comes out with products with features that are really needed and/or justify the cost of upgrading will I upgrade.
I do the same thing with my personal computers. I ran Windows98 until it didn't suit me, at which point I upgraded to Windows2000. I skipped over 98SE, ME, and NT4. I ran Windows2000 until very recently, when I needed XP to do remote desktop. If I didn't need remote desktop, I wouldn't have bothered. I'm pretty sure I'll run XP for a goodly long time.
I imagine that's about as often or less often than a typical Linux user upgrades their machine. Unless a business did the upgrading by themselves (that is, without purchasing from RedHat), then I don't really see why it's so much cheaper. Even if they did do everything themselves, then they'll need a very Linux-savy IT crew to rollout the upgrade. A Linux-savy IT crew isn't very cheap.
Some folks like having brand-new cars. I've never been able to afford that, but a lot of folks I work with can. They buy a new car every 3 years because it's what they want, and they can do it without going broke. I can't really argue with them :)
I just posted this in the poll's discussion, but it's relevant here as well:
:)
Unlike previous attempts at pen-based computing, MS has actually put work into making the pen work like a real pen, rather than just a mouse. Newtons, Palms, and graphic tablets only use them as mousing devices or rudimentary text input (because those devices lack a keyboard).
The ink on a Tablet is editable--you can insert lines, italicize it, spellcheck it, and use the other end of the pen to erase. All while leaving the ink as ink, and not converting it to plaintext first. It's much less constraining if you're taking notes, brainstorming, or authoring. After you're done doodling, then you convert it to text and publish in your favorite document format.
The ink and the really neat stuff you can do with it took a lot of work, both from MSResearch and from the product development guys. That's the innovation.
I'm a programmer, so the Tablet won't help me much with my regular day-to-day work. I do take notes, go to meetings, and produce my own personal content enough that I'd like to get one though.
I've had the opportunity to play with a Tablet PC on occasion, and they're pretty damn spiffy. I'd get one over a standard laptop like the Dell Perspiron
The preprocessor replaces the macro before the code is actually compiled. If your optimizer then reordered all the fields in the struct, offsetof screws up as well.
:)
No re-ordering classes
The compiler can't really reorder fields of a class/struct because the programmer could potentially address directly into the class without using the variable. There would be some trouble with that if the programmer couldn't predict where the data was going to be.
I actually read the decree, and I'm glad somebody else out there did as well. A good summary of the opinion, and of the case to date, is available here. It was published by the Court today as well. Everybody should probably read it before they bitch about how Microsoft won and that the DoJ is in bed with them.
The box is maybe 24" wide, and 36" deep. It fits under one side of my desk fine. I work just like I did before, but now in silence.
My solution to making my PC quite was very simple: I built a big-ass sound-insulating box for it. The box itself is made of particle board, lined with acoustic ceiling tile and carpet. I cut fan holes in the side of my original case, and mounted three fans to blow directly onto the CPU, memory and graphic board.
The fans on the side of my case pull in air from a 20" long carpet-lined duct--it acts a lot like a car muffler. The air moves through, but the carpet absorbs nearly all the sound (the sound needs to make two 90 degree turns to escape the air channel). There is a similar duct in the back of the case for outgoing air.
My 'new' case has more airflow than the computer originally had, so my internal temps are only a little higher than they used to be. I built the box with a weekend and ~$25. Now I can leave my computer on all the time without making my ears ring. If you've got access to a wood shop, it's a very effective way to make a quiet PC.
Well, if you corrected him calmly and intelligently, you'd be modded up. Then thousands of people would read your post and know the truth. It happens all the time--it's a great way to stimulate discussion here on slashdot. If everyone was as elitist as you, slashdot wouldn't be much fun.
ignorance does equality stupidity
BTW, give your posts a once-over in discussions where you're calling other folks retards.
I've had some trouble (with my 415) with the stylus input losing calibration from time to time. Every so often, I have to recalibrate the input.
I'm not sure if this is a hardware problem or a software problem--it only seems to happen after I've been playing solitaire on the damn thing.
That's only complaint though. All in all, I'm really happy with it.
The largest price cut was a 53% reduction in price. I think this was on the 1.7 GHz Pentium4M. It went from $508 to $241. The 26-53% is the range of pricecuts that were made (each model dropped by a different percentage).
I don't think the technical limitations are a factor. I asked if I could stay with my current telco and just get DSL service, and they said no.
It makes them more money.
I hope Qwest dies of gonorrhea and burns in hell.
I've had several service snafus with Qwest, and it boggled my mind that every single person I talked too was as incompetant as they were. And, in the end, I was horribly ripped off.
Unfortunately, the broadband in the neighborhood (AT&T cable modem service is available 3 or 4 blocks down the road) is Qwest copper...and they won't let you have DSL if you're not a Qwest phone customer.
If you have a choice, never, never give Qwest a dime.
Thanks for clearing that up. Isn't the heat from fires and stoves mostly IR? A campfire doesn't emit much visible light, but it emits a lot of energy that's very warming.
:)
I would reckon the common misconception comes from elementary school teachers...that's where I got it