I think that we pretty much have a similar picture of the PC of the future. However I still assert that local disk storage, and even a local OS, is still the best way of implementing the concept. Leaving the OS on the local machine creates a device that does not depend on the network for its functionality. Now in terms of an OS, Im not describing Linux, Windows, or any other product on the market. I'm talking about a minimally configurable system designed to work on one variety of dedicated hardware. Everyone has the same interface, suite of applications, and basic configuration. It only does certain things, but it does them well.
The advantages are numerous. Those without massive bandwidth have a usable system right out of the box. No network connection necessary. If the cable modem/DSL/T1/satellite link is out, the thing still works well. As high bandwidth connectivity penetrates into the home market, less of this bandwidth is consumed with OS issues that are best served locally. Files can be stored on the user's disk, which helps to resolve privacy issues. Browser cache resides on the disk, reducing the demand for RAM, and unburdening the network. The disk could even be used to store video (granted this would increase the cost) from brodcasts, which helps kill the need for a VCR. There are many examples of items that would be more easily stored locally than across the network. Photos from a digital camera, mp3's, sensitive documents and so on. Flash memory is a more expensive, and perhaps less reliable technology right now. Disks are fairly cheap, and will continue to be useful long into the future.
Having the OS on the disk does not have to be a maintenance nightmare. First, minimize the options that the user can configure. Then take away all of the user access to the system partition of the drive, just give them a user area to store files. Next, drastically limit the hardware that can be connected to the device. Make the core of the PC a sealed black box with built in ethernet and TV out. Add one brand of wireless keyboard and pointing device. Include a pair of game controllers. One, maybe two types of printer. Keep it as simple as possible while offering in demand functionlality. Set yourelf up as the only hardware manufacturer, and say goodbye to hardware conflicts. Finally, make the OS upgradeable (even seamlessly replaceable) in a transparent automatic process. This allows the addition of new features, and the repair of software bugs. Times will change and the PC will be able to change with them. Having a disk in the box allows greater utility without a substantial increase in cost or complexity. Plus most consumers these days will probably prefer a disk. Getting people to store everything on a huge central server seems like a tough sell for at least the next couple of years.
Note: The system I'm describing is not for the slashdot crowd. Its for the people who dont know the subtle distinction between Windows and Office version numbers even though they work with them everyday. Its for people who grasp the mouse with white knuckles because theyre afraid of the damn thing. I'm not even really advocating this computing appliance approach. Personally, I think it would be better to raise competent users instead of making an OS for the incompetent. Yet I do see a demand for such products, and believe that the market will respond to this demand in a big way over the next five years. Also, I'd like to point out that I don't work for a hard disk manufacturer.
Web TV really isn't a bad solution for the masses who want to do a bit of email, surf for pr0n, and sit on the couch. I think that similar devices are where the PC industry is heading. However I disagree with the notion that these devices will be thin-clients or diskless NC's. The price of computer hardware is constantly dropping so fast that there is not a very compelling reason to cripple these machines by removing the disks.
I really don't see these devices catching on until you have about 70 percent of the functionality of a normal PC. People will still want word processing, simple financial software, and other home oriented programs. In addition, they are going to want to be able to print. Add on game console functionality, DVD video, CD/MP3 audio and you are all set. So far everything that I've described can be done without a disk in the box if you have enough bandwidth.
Now ask yourself: Are people really going to feel comfortable storing all of their files on a remote server? I don't want to be cut off from my term paper when the cable goes out. What about needing to download your favorite mp3 every time you want to play it? No thanks. I want a local disk to store my files, and my OS. Especially since a small HD with a controller won't add too much to the overall cost of the device.
With a disk comes the complexity of administration, and learning the operating system. This does not need to become an obstacle however. All you need is a very simple, task specific OS that anyone can figure out. Good UI design is possible, and would be necessary in this kind of situation. Then make software upgrades as simple as Debian's apt-get, and set it up as an automated process. Care would need to be taken in the implementation, but it could be mostly transparent. Ideally, you should be able to put together an all-in-one set top box with plenty of computing power at a price point acceptable for the masses. Develop a good, mindless OS to control it with, and then stake out the prime spot on the couch. Hardware is, and should continue to be inexpensive enough that there isn't yet a reason to produce neutered computers.
Seperating the engine from the storyline really makes sense for certain types of games. Games similar to the old style Sierra text/graphics adventures would really lend themselves to this kind of distribution. The game engine is developed and released for free. The artwork, music, and story are composed and then made available for purchase as a separate module.
Since the source for the game engine will be available, anyone could make a game. An easy to use game development kit might then be produced to facilitate this. The quality of the game that you make would determine its value in the marketplace. An weekend of hacking a game together might produce something good enough to download. A couple of months of careful design by skilled writers, artists, and musicians would be worthy of purchase. Realisitically, the game would have to be killer to be able to survive in this type of market. Yet isnt this what we want? Tying the game to something with a strong brand-image would also help make it commercially successful. Movie tie-ins, background music by famous artists, and recreations of great storylines could set a profitable game apart from a free download.
On the other side of the spectrum the game engine would be a great teaching tool. The intracacies of plot development could be studied by doing. Effects of visual images and music on a storyline would be very easy to play with. The creative process of game develoment is made available to everyone. Not only that, but lessons learned from the process could be applied to other more academic areas such as writing.
Now if MS had a clue, they could make a thin server for games of this type, to allow multiplayer functionality. Actually, that might not be a bad use for these lil boxen. Any moron could setup a game server for a LAN party, or online multiplayer game. Shoot, that would be the only thing I'd really trust them with, and it could take advantage of the large base of game apps. Hmmmm MS Game Server 2001, almost sounds plausible.
The FIRST time I bought an AMD chip...
on
AMD Interview
·
· Score: 1
was abought 10 years ago. It was a 386-40 and really made my FIRST x86 computer pretty snappy for the time. The FIRST time I heard about the K5 and K6, I wanted to be the FIRST on the block to get one. However I knew a guy who didnt bother to put a CPU fan on FIRST before turning the power on. He had a little puddle of molten CPU in the bottom of the case. It was his FIRST computer and it really bummed him out. Shortly thereafter he bought his FIRST mac.
Now I've been using Intel chips for years now, but when I FIRST heard about the K7 I really wanted that chip. Now that Intel has decided to become the FIRST manufacturer to put nasty chipID's into the x86 architecture I have no choice but to buy AMD. I care about privacy, I care about the FIRST ammendment. This isnt the FIRST time a company has been against the cause of freedom. Yet I know this wont be the FIRST boycott I participate in because business overstep thier bounds.
Back to the K7. I want to be the FIRST in line at the store on the release date. Now, am I correct in assuming that this is the FIRST chip targeted to the consumer market using the DEC bus protocol? I've thought about buying an Alpha, but I want to see how the K7 does FIRST. Oh well, the article was a bit doubleplusmarketingspeak for my taste, but I read it anyway. I just want to be FIRST among my friends with the K7 info.
said already, but: that is silican graphics
on
Tuesday Quickies
·
· Score: 1
I can just see it now. Forget selling watches by the side of the road, the big money is in high-end workstations.
"Pssst hey buddy, check it out. Its a Silican Graphics box, just like they used for Toy Story. And Ive got this Compak-Alfa workstation, just fell off of the truck. Look at all of these VD Research PC's with Lynux pre-installed, real cheap!"
Shoot, I've already got my career chip. When I found out that I was doomed to be a Visual Basic programmer I cried myself to sleep. Now I've got to wait until 2008 for the invention of the suicide booth...
Hmmmm, maybe there will be an opening in Microsoft's macro virus development division pretty soon. Shoot after the DOJ breakup, I could make a killing in stock options when they spin off it off as a new company.
Although bandwidth has increased steadily over the last hundred years, it has been the decrease in message latency that has really revolutionized communications. For George Washington to send a message to England, he could expect a transit time of about four months. In the days of the pony express, it took a bit over a week to send a message across the country. This slow speed at which messages were propagated had some pretty profound effects. Jamestown settlers couldnt send for more supplies in November and expect them for the winter. The king couldnt send timely orders to his governor, or keep abreast of current news. Moving up the timeline a bit we run into other considerations. What if the president had been shot? People in California couldn't know about it until at least a week later. Fundamental details such as who is in charge of the country are unknown to a substantial portion of the population for a long time. Everything on the other coast is old news, at least from our modern perspective.
When electronic communications became commonplace, these distances were greatly reduced. Messages get blasted across the country at around the speed of light. Newspapers could report current information. Important events of the day were on the evening news. Now our wars are fought halfway around the world on live TV. There is no more delay in getting a message across. Bandwidth will increase, allowing larger messages to get sent faster. Yet bandwidth only changes the content, and will not contribute in a measurable way to the revolution that has already taken place.
Fortunately we do have some say in what it does. Electronic data collection will eventually become very widespread and intrusive. Steps like clueful voting and letter wrtiting campaigns can help make a difference, and keep the government in check. Im glad to see it work.
Take a look over my shoulder as I read my T1 bill from 2003.
Infomation Superhighway Development Fee: 6.44 Federal excise tax: 1.25 Funding to support the Public Utilities Commission:.65 COPA filter maintenance charge: 6.66 Legacy architecture support surcharge: 2.35 Funding to support T1 connection to rural markets: 1.11 Funding to reverse historical bandwidth discrimination:.37 Interstate high-bandwith connection fee: 2.87 Lifeline high-bandwidth connection subsidy:.65 IPv6 address maintenance surcharge:.34 Traditional retailer support charge: 5.31 Classroom Connection program tax:.13
And so on. Just watch the government find the way to make up for not taxing ecommerce. Newt has a good idea, and seems to understand the proper role of government in the Internet. Sadly men like Gore have much more power to poison the well.
About 90 percent of the users in my office seem to have heard of a T1 line and know that they are faster than 56K dialup. No big surprise, since that is how our network is connected to the internet. However the understanding stops here. Out of that 90% most of them seem to think that ANYTHING faster than dialup is T1. Typical conversation:
User: "Hey! I just got a T1 line installed in my house!"
Tech: "Really, what are you using it for?"
User: "I can surf the web so much faster now..."
Tech: "Gee, isn't it a bit expensive for just web surfing?"
User: "No, only 60 bucks a month and it comes with basic cable"
Tech: "oh, ok"
They pick up on the T1 buzzword, and use it to sound 31337 to thier friends. I have a feeling that Gingrich has a similar grasp on the technology. Its OK though because for the most part he is right on. Big pipes, no taxes seems to be a great policy coming from the government.
Sadly I think that this new age of enlightenment will also become a new age of marketing and promotion. We will have to put up with more of this crap than less. It will become even easier to promote cheezy bands synthesized by the record labels. In fact you could break it down into a few easy steps.
Step One: Form your band. Go hunting for washed up models, or teenage boys. No musical talent necessary. Develop a ficticious personality for each member that is designed to appeal to a different segment of the market. Put together an overall image for the band and write the bio's accordingly. Create a catch phrase and associate it with the band. Build the image.
Step Two: Get AOL to push your band of lipsyncing models / street tough teen sweethearts as featured artist of the month. You give AOL some green, they push MP3's into everyone's face. Look for other opportunities for exposure. Get their song on Dawson's Creek. Pay Extra to do a piece on the band hyping their meteoric rise to fame. Get them in Bop and Teen Beat, you can fill the vaccuum that was left when JTT grew up. Be creative. Hype the image.
Step Three: Start cashing in. Plan a tour, make a movie. Work them until they drop, because they will only be popular for so long. Once they start to die out, move on. Cash in on the image.
So, Im looking for three to five washed up models...
I don't think that IBM really has any animosity towards Linux at all. In fact I think they see it as an opportunity to get a greater foothold in the 'low end' server market. The fact that a Linux server can handle a million hits a day is not relevant to IBM. They are trying to round out their product line while perserving their high end business. Its a good bet that their AIX based systems have a better profit margin. This provides a strong incentive for them to differentiate their servers in the minds of consumers. Are they going to say that it is better than AIX? No they are trying to leverage some marketshare away from NT based solutions offered by other major vendors. Linux is a good fit for IBM in this segment of the market, and that is how we will see it marketed.
Anyone else notice the "three Zero ohm-chip-resistors" mentioned in the story? I'd have a great time in meetings with this thing. Put some huge magnets in my briefcase and float my Palm on top. Maybe we could get a bunch of these and make a maglev train composed of Palm V's. I wonder if the next model up has a cold fusion power supply....
Companies looking to make money by providing access to media don't like mp3 for a simple reason. Once you have the file, you have control of the music. You can listen to it all you want, and take it with you on a Rio. Worst of all, you can make a perfect copy and give it to your buddies. This really makes it unlikely that they will sell many mp3's on their site.
From reading the article, I get the feeling that Cuban is lusting for a pay-per-view dynamic. He wants to make money each time you listen to the song. Sort of like a worldwide jukebox. The best way to do this is by delivering the content as a compressed encrypted stream. Fortunately its a really knotty problem figuring out how to deliver the music and not allow it to be stored or shared. My guess is that they are spending a lot more money to develop the 'copy protection' scheme than they are putting into bettering compression. They want control over the format, content, and distribution. As digital internet connections become more common and migrate towards the TV, this kind of technology will become an economic powerhouse. However mp3 is not the format that can be used to exploit it. In fact, it becomes a liability for the new distribution scheme. They want it killed or at least marginalized as soon as possible. ZD seems awfully happy to help. In fact, Im beginning to think that their magazines should have "Special Advertising Section" printed on all of their editorials.
It just shifts the problems around. If people were allowed to do this, the domain squatters would become more creative. There will still be domain names that are more 'valuable' than others simply because of marketing appeal. How about a.mag TLD? Fine, but someone is going to register porno.mag and try and resell it. You like.sex? Better register all of the interesting combos. Id bet 100 bucks that some pr0n site would pay good money for the anal.sex domain. Sure there are many more variants, but only a handful will stick out in peoples minds. All the squatters have to do is figure out what these "special" domains are.
If you allow anything to be used as a TLD, then a whole new crop of trademark problems arise. Lets say that MS wants to have www.windows2000.microsoft. Since the TLD must stay free, then I want dontuse.microsoft, evilempire.microsoft and so on. Im sure Id see MS's cadre of thritysomething lawers breathing fire at that point.
This also could create confusion for end users. Some people I've run across are too dense to include the www and.com when I tell them to use altavista. I didnt believe it when I saw it. There must be many more lusers than slashdotters. The consistency of the TLD's is at least something that you break down into a quick explanation. People usually don't like answers like, "Well it really could be anything." They like nice little boxes to stick things into. Of course at this point the.com TLD has a lot of inertia and support from the big players. It would take awhile before fragmentation becomes a problem. I think this solution would be a lot of fun, but it won't really take care of the problem.
Is some gear designed specifically for the tech support professional. Oh sure it looks like a bag full of miscellaneous computer bits. But when the Exchange server goes down for the last time, it doubles as combat armor for when you decide to go postal. I would go crazy for some sort of geek-belt that holds all of the tools I need and has a strap for my special screwdriver. The 24 inch long one made out of hardened steel. Its for adjusting the loose screw between the keyboard and the seat. I bet you would actually sell some of these.
It even bugs me when people call the whole box the CPU. There is even a little sign telling you that it has 'Intel INSIDE' on the case. Oh well its not really that big of deal.
As far as hard drive damage goes, I find dissassembly to be the best revenge. Slow, methodic removal of all parts, followed by burial. Bits to bits and sand to sand. Next time an important disk has a head crash, Im even making a tombstone.
Such a beast does exist. I worked on one last week with built in ethernet based on an intel chip. However the FPOS wouldnt work under NT for some indecipherable reason. I dont know about linux support. I didnt want to find out, because after dealing with it for a while I got a case of 'not my box' syndrome. This motherboard sure seemed like it was make by the lowest bidder.
Looking through my freebie ad-mag there is one board with onboard ethernet. Its the ASUS P2B-LS, which should be a pretty decent board (its not the same one that I worked on). Intel ethernet and adaptec SCSI, with a BX chipset. The only downer is the $370 pricetag. Good luck.
Its very clear that any system of this type does not have the best interests of the user in mind. You want me to store my software on a central server? I can just see it now, pay per use copies of MS products. Pay per megabyte storage. Pay per packet moved over the network. Pay per server cpu cycle consumed. I think that all they are interested in is a more lucrative way of distributing software. At least the EULA will be more consistent with how the software is actually used. This also could be a tragedy from a privacy standpoint, but since I won't even let MS or Intel near one of my boxen, I don't think I'd ever sign up with a 'megaserver.'
This is a reasonably clever site. However stuff like this is making me want to move to Mongolia until the movie comes out. I love Star Wars, but man I'm dreading the Star Wars Happy Meals, Access Hollywood sneak previews and so on. Then come the painful news reports about people showing up in costume opening night. Then the weekly grosses, and how they measure up to expectations. Will Star Wars beat Titanic at the box office? I can just hear the local newscasters now. Maybe I just wont turn on the vile box, and spend more time tweaking this one.
Many of the big names in the computing world have poured a LOT of money into RedHat. Now this isn't like they gave big donations to the Debian project. No, they are expecting to get this money back and then some. So now what does RedHat have to do? Go out and make a whole pile of money before their investors start getting worried. So now they have a lot of pressure to perform. Not only do they have to succeed as a company with free software ideals, but as a company that can bring in some good profits.
Remember that a lot of these investors probably aren't thrilled with RedHat's business model. They just don't get free software. However they want horse in the race, just in case Linux takes off in a huge way. RedHat is making money, and is the leader in tangible things like brand recognition. So the heavy hitters wrote some big checks, and proudly handed out press releases.
RedHat is in a bind. They have an aging distro that needs to be replaced. However they cant afford to put out a buggy mess. The free software community is looking at the money pouring in and expressing rumblings of distrust. Not only is RedHat starting to piss off their major market, but also the people who wrote a lot of the software. They need to benefit from the growth of the Linux market, but that brings them into greater competiton with the fountain of FUD: Microsoft. Place yourself in the role of a RedHat exec. What would you do now?
With this set of circumstances I have a bit of compassion for RedHat. Its sort of like they have a wife and a mistress. Each one wants to hear about different things, and its up to RedHat to keep them straight. Complicating matters is that a lot of this communication is done in the press, so everybody gets to read the love letters. Even worse is that the promises that RedHat makes to one can't damage their relationship with the other. Talk about a fine line to walk.
I think that it is an important time for the free software community to be a good 'wife' to RedHat. Cheer them on in their successes, help them through failures, and kill them if they run away with their mistress.
Great article you mentioned. I loved the quote "Security Enforces Trust." Where is the trust if there needs to be security? I think what he really meant is that security replaces trust.
And why do we even bother with companies who dont trust their consumers? Where does intel get off telling me that they think that they need to keep an eye on me. What do they think they are, some sort of government agency. They sell computer chips. Am I supposed to do grovel at their feet and let them watch what I do with MY PC in MY own home? What's next, Ford installing cameras in my car to make sure that I wont use it in a bank robbery? Lets hope that there are enough people with a clue who will resist this corporate surveliance in our lives. As an early 20's hardware geek who will buy RAM instead of bread, this quote alone makes me sure that my next (several) boxes wont have intel inside.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that we pretty much have a similar picture of the PC of the future. However I still assert that local disk storage, and even a local OS, is still the best way of implementing the concept. Leaving the OS on the local machine creates a device that does not depend on the network for its functionality. Now in terms of an OS, Im not describing Linux, Windows, or any other product on the market. I'm talking about a minimally configurable system designed to work on one variety of dedicated hardware. Everyone has the same interface, suite of applications, and basic configuration. It only does certain things, but it does them well.
The advantages are numerous. Those without massive bandwidth have a usable system right out of the box. No network connection necessary. If the cable modem/DSL/T1/satellite link is out, the thing still works well. As high bandwidth connectivity penetrates into the home market, less of this bandwidth is consumed with OS issues that are best served locally. Files can be stored on the user's disk, which helps to resolve privacy issues. Browser cache resides on the disk, reducing the demand for RAM, and unburdening the network. The disk could even be used to store video (granted this would increase the cost) from brodcasts, which helps kill the need for a VCR. There are many examples of items that would be more easily stored locally than across the network. Photos from a digital camera, mp3's, sensitive documents and so on. Flash memory is a more expensive, and perhaps less reliable technology right now. Disks are fairly cheap, and will continue to be useful long into the future.
Having the OS on the disk does not have to be a maintenance nightmare. First, minimize the options that the user can configure. Then take away all of the user access to the system partition of the drive, just give them a user area to store files. Next, drastically limit the hardware that can be connected to the device. Make the core of the PC a sealed black box with built in ethernet and TV out. Add one brand of wireless keyboard and pointing device. Include a pair of game controllers. One, maybe two types of printer. Keep it as simple as possible while offering in demand functionlality. Set yourelf up as the only hardware manufacturer, and say goodbye to hardware conflicts. Finally, make the OS upgradeable (even seamlessly replaceable) in a transparent automatic process. This allows the addition of new features, and the repair of software bugs. Times will change and the PC will be able to change with them. Having a disk in the box allows greater utility without a substantial increase in cost or complexity. Plus most consumers these days will probably prefer a disk. Getting people to store everything on a huge central server seems like a tough sell for at least the next couple of years.
Note: The system I'm describing is not for the slashdot crowd. Its for the people who dont know the subtle distinction between Windows and Office version numbers even though they work with them everyday. Its for people who grasp the mouse with white knuckles because theyre afraid of the damn thing. I'm not even really advocating this computing appliance approach. Personally, I think it would be better to raise competent users instead of making an OS for the incompetent. Yet I do see a demand for such products, and believe that the market will respond to this demand in a big way over the next five years. Also, I'd like to point out that I don't work for a hard disk manufacturer.
Web TV really isn't a bad solution for the masses who want to do a bit of email, surf for pr0n, and sit on the couch. I think that similar devices are where the PC industry is heading. However I disagree with the notion that these devices will be thin-clients or diskless NC's. The price of computer hardware is constantly dropping so fast that there is not a very compelling reason to cripple these machines by removing the disks.
I really don't see these devices catching on until you have about 70 percent of the functionality of a normal PC. People will still want word processing, simple financial software, and other home oriented programs. In addition, they are going to want to be able to print. Add on game console functionality, DVD video, CD/MP3 audio and you are all set. So far everything that I've described can be done without a disk in the box if you have enough bandwidth.
Now ask yourself: Are people really going to feel comfortable storing all of their files on a remote server? I don't want to be cut off from my term paper when the cable goes out. What about needing to download your favorite mp3 every time you want to play it? No thanks. I want a local disk to store my files, and my OS. Especially since a small HD with a controller won't add too much to the overall cost of the device.
With a disk comes the complexity of administration, and learning the operating system. This does not need to become an obstacle however. All you need is a very simple, task specific OS that anyone can figure out. Good UI design is possible, and would be necessary in this kind of situation. Then make software upgrades as simple as Debian's apt-get, and set it up as an automated process. Care would need to be taken in the implementation, but it could be mostly transparent. Ideally, you should be able to put together an all-in-one set top box with plenty of computing power at a price point acceptable for the masses. Develop a good, mindless OS to control it with, and then stake out the prime spot on the couch. Hardware is, and should continue to be inexpensive enough that there isn't yet a reason to produce neutered computers.
Seperating the engine from the storyline really makes sense for certain types of games. Games similar to the old style Sierra text/graphics adventures would really lend themselves to this kind of distribution. The game engine is developed and released for free. The artwork, music, and story are composed and then made available for purchase as a separate module.
Since the source for the game engine will be available, anyone could make a game. An easy to use game development kit might then be produced to facilitate this. The quality of the game that you make would determine its value in the marketplace. An weekend of hacking a game together might produce something good enough to download. A couple of months of careful design by skilled writers, artists, and musicians would be worthy of purchase. Realisitically, the game would have to be killer to be able to survive in this type of market. Yet isnt this what we want? Tying the game to something with a strong brand-image would also help make it commercially successful. Movie tie-ins, background music by famous artists, and recreations of great storylines could set a profitable game apart from a free download.
On the other side of the spectrum the game engine would be a great teaching tool. The intracacies of plot development could be studied by doing. Effects of visual images and music on a storyline would be very easy to play with. The creative process of game develoment is made available to everyone. Not only that, but lessons learned from the process could be applied to other more academic areas such as writing.
Now if MS had a clue, they could make a thin server for games of this type, to allow multiplayer functionality. Actually, that might not be a bad use for these lil boxen. Any moron could setup a game server for a LAN party, or online multiplayer game. Shoot, that would be the only thing I'd really trust them with, and it could take advantage of the large base of game apps. Hmmmm MS Game Server 2001, almost sounds plausible.
I bent my wookie
was abought 10 years ago. It was a 386-40 and really made my FIRST x86 computer pretty snappy for the time. The FIRST time I heard about the K5 and K6, I wanted to be the FIRST on the block to get one. However I knew a guy who didnt bother to put a CPU fan on FIRST before turning the power on. He had a little puddle of molten CPU in the bottom of the case. It was his FIRST computer and it really bummed him out. Shortly thereafter he bought his FIRST mac.
Now I've been using Intel chips for years now, but when I FIRST heard about the K7 I really wanted that chip. Now that Intel has decided to become the FIRST manufacturer to put nasty chipID's into the x86 architecture I have no choice but to buy AMD. I care about privacy, I care about the FIRST ammendment. This isnt the FIRST time a company has been against the cause of freedom. Yet I know this wont be the FIRST boycott I participate in because business overstep thier bounds.
Back to the K7. I want to be the FIRST in line at the store on the release date. Now, am I correct in assuming that this is the FIRST chip targeted to the consumer market using the DEC bus protocol? I've thought about buying an Alpha, but I want to see how the K7 does FIRST. Oh well, the article was a bit doubleplusmarketingspeak for my taste, but I read it anyway. I just want to be FIRST among my friends with the K7 info.
I can just see it now. Forget selling watches by the side of the road, the big money is in high-end workstations.
"Pssst hey buddy, check it out. Its a Silican Graphics box, just like they used for Toy Story. And Ive got this Compak-Alfa workstation, just fell off of the truck. Look at all of these VD Research PC's with Lynux pre-installed, real cheap!"
You have to annihilate entire galaxies worth of matter/antimatter to be able to do this.
This sounds like a marketing line designed to sell FTL vehicles to American consumers.
"Now not only will you get to Alpha Centauri in LESS than 4.3 years, you'll get the rush of destroying an entire galaxy along the way!"
Hmmm, I think its time to start an intergalactic Tread Lightly[1] campaign...
[1] Basically "Dont screw up nature while driving off road."
Shoot, I've already got my career chip. When I found out that I was doomed to be a Visual Basic programmer I cried myself to sleep. Now I've got to wait until 2008 for the invention of the suicide booth...
Hmmmm, maybe there will be an opening in Microsoft's macro virus development division pretty soon. Shoot after the DOJ breakup, I could make a killing in stock options when they spin off it off as a new company.
Although bandwidth has increased steadily over the last hundred years, it has been the decrease in message latency that has really revolutionized communications. For George Washington to send a message to England, he could expect a transit time of about four months. In the days of the pony express, it took a bit over a week to send a message across the country. This slow speed at which messages were propagated had some pretty profound effects. Jamestown settlers couldnt send for more supplies in November and expect them for the winter. The king couldnt send timely orders to his governor, or keep abreast of current news. Moving up the timeline a bit we run into other considerations. What if the president had been shot? People in California couldn't know about it until at least a week later. Fundamental details such as who is in charge of the country are unknown to a substantial portion of the population for a long time. Everything on the other coast is old news, at least from our modern perspective.
When electronic communications became commonplace, these distances were greatly reduced. Messages get blasted across the country at around the speed of light. Newspapers could report current information. Important events of the day were on the evening news. Now our wars are fought halfway around the world on live TV. There is no more delay in getting a message across. Bandwidth will increase, allowing larger messages to get sent faster. Yet bandwidth only changes the content, and will not contribute in a measurable way to the revolution that has already taken place.
Fortunately we do have some say in what it does. Electronic data collection will eventually become very widespread and intrusive. Steps like clueful voting and letter wrtiting campaigns can help make a difference, and keep the government in check. Im glad to see it work.
And 1000 people screw up the implementation.
.65 .37 .65 .34 .13
Take a look over my shoulder as I read my T1 bill from 2003.
Infomation Superhighway Development Fee: 6.44
Federal excise tax: 1.25
Funding to support the Public Utilities Commission:
COPA filter maintenance charge: 6.66
Legacy architecture support surcharge: 2.35
Funding to support T1 connection to rural markets: 1.11
Funding to reverse historical bandwidth discrimination:
Interstate high-bandwith connection fee: 2.87
Lifeline high-bandwidth connection subsidy:
IPv6 address maintenance surcharge:
Traditional retailer support charge: 5.31
Classroom Connection program tax:
And so on. Just watch the government find the way to make up for not taxing ecommerce. Newt has a good idea, and seems to understand the proper role of government in the Internet. Sadly men like Gore have much more power to poison the well.
About 90 percent of the users in my office seem to have heard of a T1 line and know that they are faster than 56K dialup. No big surprise, since that is how our network is connected to the internet. However the understanding stops here. Out of that 90% most of them seem to think that ANYTHING faster than dialup is T1. Typical conversation:
User: "Hey! I just got a T1 line installed in my house!"
Tech: "Really, what are you using it for?"
User: "I can surf the web so much faster now..."
Tech: "Gee, isn't it a bit expensive for just web surfing?"
User: "No, only 60 bucks a month and it comes with basic cable"
Tech: "oh, ok"
They pick up on the T1 buzzword, and use it to sound 31337 to thier friends. I have a feeling that Gingrich has a similar grasp on the technology. Its OK though because for the most part he is right on. Big pipes, no taxes seems to be a great policy coming from the government.
Sadly I think that this new age of enlightenment will also become a new age of marketing and promotion. We will have to put up with more of this crap than less. It will become even easier to promote cheezy bands synthesized by the record labels. In fact you could break it down into a few easy steps.
Step One: Form your band. Go hunting for washed up models, or teenage boys. No musical talent necessary. Develop a ficticious personality for each member that is designed to appeal to a different segment of the market. Put together an overall image for the band and write the bio's accordingly. Create a catch phrase and associate it with the band. Build the image.
Step Two: Get AOL to push your band of lipsyncing models / street tough teen sweethearts as featured artist of the month. You give AOL some green, they push MP3's into everyone's face. Look for other opportunities for exposure. Get their song on Dawson's Creek. Pay Extra to do a piece on the band hyping their meteoric rise to fame. Get them in Bop and Teen Beat, you can fill the vaccuum that was left when JTT grew up. Be creative. Hype the image.
Step Three: Start cashing in. Plan a tour, make a movie. Work them until they drop, because they will only be popular for so long. Once they start to die out, move on. Cash in on the image.
So, Im looking for three to five washed up models...
I don't think that IBM really has any animosity towards Linux at all. In fact I think they see it as an opportunity to get a greater foothold in the 'low end' server market. The fact that a Linux server can handle a million hits a day is not relevant to IBM. They are trying to round out their product line while perserving their high end business. Its a good bet that their AIX based systems have a better profit margin. This provides a strong incentive for them to differentiate their servers in the minds of consumers. Are they going to say that it is better than AIX? No they are trying to leverage some marketshare away from NT based solutions offered by other major vendors. Linux is a good fit for IBM in this segment of the market, and that is how we will see it marketed.
Anyone else notice the "three Zero ohm-chip-resistors" mentioned in the story? I'd have a great time in meetings with this thing. Put some huge magnets in my briefcase and float my Palm on top. Maybe we could get a bunch of these and make a maglev train composed of Palm V's. I wonder if the next model up has a cold fusion power supply....
Companies looking to make money by providing access to media don't like mp3 for a simple reason. Once you have the file, you have control of the music. You can listen to it all you want, and take it with you on a Rio. Worst of all, you can make a perfect copy and give it to your buddies. This really makes it unlikely that they will sell many mp3's on their site.
From reading the article, I get the feeling that Cuban is lusting for a pay-per-view dynamic. He wants to make money each time you listen to the song. Sort of like a worldwide jukebox. The best way to do this is by delivering the content as a compressed encrypted stream. Fortunately its a really knotty problem figuring out how to deliver the music and not allow it to be stored or shared. My guess is that they are spending a lot more money to develop the 'copy protection' scheme than they are putting into bettering compression. They want control over the format, content, and distribution. As digital internet connections become more common and migrate towards the TV, this kind of technology will become an economic powerhouse. However mp3 is not the format that can be used to exploit it. In fact, it becomes a liability for the new distribution scheme. They want it killed or at least marginalized as soon as possible. ZD seems awfully happy to help. In fact, Im beginning to think that their magazines should have "Special Advertising Section" printed on all of their editorials.
It just shifts the problems around. If people were allowed to do this, the domain squatters would become more creative. There will still be domain names that are more 'valuable' than others simply because of marketing appeal. How about a .mag TLD? Fine, but someone is going to register porno.mag and try and resell it. You like .sex? Better register all of the interesting combos. Id bet 100 bucks that some pr0n site would pay good money for the anal.sex domain. Sure there are many more variants, but only a handful will stick out in peoples minds. All the squatters have to do is figure out what these "special" domains are.
.com when I tell them to use altavista. I didnt believe it when I saw it. There must be many more lusers than slashdotters. The consistency of the TLD's is at least something that you break down into a quick explanation. People usually don't like answers like, "Well it really could be anything." They like nice little boxes to stick things into. Of course at this point the .com TLD has a lot of inertia and support from the big players. It would take awhile before fragmentation becomes a problem. I think this solution would be a lot of fun, but it won't really take care of the problem.
If you allow anything to be used as a TLD, then a whole new crop of trademark problems arise. Lets say that MS wants to have www.windows2000.microsoft. Since the TLD must stay free, then I want dontuse.microsoft, evilempire.microsoft and so on. Im sure Id see MS's cadre of thritysomething lawers breathing fire at that point.
This also could create confusion for end users. Some people I've run across are too dense to include the www and
Is some gear designed specifically for the tech support professional. Oh sure it looks like a bag full of miscellaneous computer bits. But when the Exchange server goes down for the last time, it doubles as combat armor for when you decide to go postal. I would go crazy for some sort of geek-belt that holds all of the tools I need and has a strap for my special screwdriver. The 24 inch long one made out of hardened steel. Its for adjusting the loose screw between the keyboard and the seat. I bet you would actually sell some of these.
It even bugs me when people call the whole box the CPU. There is even a little sign telling you that it has 'Intel INSIDE' on the case. Oh well its not really that big of deal.
As far as hard drive damage goes, I find dissassembly to be the best revenge. Slow, methodic removal of all parts, followed by burial. Bits to bits and sand to sand. Next time an important disk has a head crash, Im even making a tombstone.
Such a beast does exist. I worked on one last week with built in ethernet based on an intel chip. However the FPOS wouldnt work under NT for some indecipherable reason. I dont know about linux support. I didnt want to find out, because after dealing with it for a while I got a case of 'not my box' syndrome. This motherboard sure seemed like it was make by the lowest bidder.
Looking through my freebie ad-mag there is one board with onboard ethernet. Its the ASUS P2B-LS, which should be a pretty decent board (its not the same one that I worked on). Intel ethernet and adaptec SCSI, with a BX chipset. The only downer is the $370 pricetag. Good luck.
Its very clear that any system of this type does not have the best interests of the user in mind. You want me to store my software on a central server? I can just see it now, pay per use copies of MS products. Pay per megabyte storage. Pay per packet moved over the network. Pay per server cpu cycle consumed. I think that all they are interested in is a more lucrative way of distributing software. At least the EULA will be more consistent with how the software is actually used. This also could be a tragedy from a privacy standpoint, but since I won't even let MS or Intel near one of my boxen, I don't think I'd ever sign up with a 'megaserver.'
This is a reasonably clever site. However stuff like this is making me want to move to Mongolia until the movie comes out. I love Star Wars, but man I'm dreading the Star Wars Happy Meals, Access Hollywood sneak previews and so on. Then come the painful news reports about people showing up in costume opening night. Then the weekly grosses, and how they measure up to expectations. Will Star Wars beat Titanic at the box office? I can just hear the local newscasters now. Maybe I just wont turn on the vile box, and spend more time tweaking this one.
Many of the big names in the computing world have poured a LOT of money into RedHat. Now this isn't like they gave big donations to the Debian project. No, they are expecting to get this money back and then some. So now what does RedHat have to do? Go out and make a whole pile of money before their investors start getting worried. So now they have a lot of pressure to perform. Not only do they have to succeed as a company with free software ideals, but as a company that can bring in some good profits.
Remember that a lot of these investors probably aren't thrilled with RedHat's business model. They just don't get free software. However they want horse in the race, just in case Linux takes off in a huge way. RedHat is making money, and is the leader in tangible things like brand recognition. So the heavy hitters wrote some big checks, and proudly handed out press releases.
RedHat is in a bind. They have an aging distro that needs to be replaced. However they cant afford to put out a buggy mess. The free software community is looking at the money pouring in and expressing rumblings of distrust. Not only is RedHat starting to piss off their major market, but also the people who wrote a lot of the software. They need to benefit from the growth of the Linux market, but that brings them into greater competiton with the fountain of FUD: Microsoft. Place yourself in the role of a RedHat exec. What would you do now?
With this set of circumstances I have a bit of compassion for RedHat. Its sort of like they have a wife and a mistress. Each one wants to hear about different things, and its up to RedHat to keep them straight. Complicating matters is that a lot of this communication is done in the press, so everybody gets to read the love letters. Even worse is that the promises that RedHat makes to one can't damage their relationship with the other. Talk about a fine line to walk.
I think that it is an important time for the free software community to be a good 'wife' to RedHat. Cheer them on in their successes, help them through failures, and kill them if they run away with their mistress.
Great article you mentioned. I loved the quote "Security Enforces Trust." Where is the trust if there needs to be security? I think what he really meant is that security replaces trust.
And why do we even bother with companies who dont trust their consumers? Where does intel get off telling me that they think that they need to keep an eye on me. What do they think they are, some sort of government agency. They sell computer chips. Am I supposed to do grovel at their feet and let them watch what I do with MY PC in MY own home? What's next, Ford installing cameras in my car to make sure that I wont use it in a bank robbery? Lets hope that there are enough people with a clue who will resist this corporate surveliance in our lives. As an early 20's hardware geek who will buy RAM instead of bread, this quote alone makes me sure that my next (several) boxes wont have intel inside.
-Intel public enemy #8923549784672378