Just one (honest) question, I live in a quite small European country (about the size of Los Angeles, you can find out which one on your own) and you really came out here to test with our national telecom operator? Really? That's surprising. I thought that standards like GSM would assure that there is interoperability on any GSM network. That's what standards are for, right?
I won't dispute that 1.6 isn't supported by Apple, because I wouldn't know (see above, I don't have OS X), but I really wonder why you switch JDKs often? I mean, I'm a professional Java developer and we are still developing for 1.4 because that was what was there when the project started. Switching? Won't do that until there's a major revision. So, for professional programmers, doing large scale projects, this is a non-issue. Besides, if your app is going to run on a Sun server, do you really think that the Sun implementation is the same on x86 and on sparc?
Why exactly do you care? IBM also has a Java Virtual Machine. So do others. It's supposed to be cross-platform, right?
Sure, after all you installed it... What "Mac specific stuff", by the way? You mean stuff like Swing? That should work just fine. Or do you mean SWT, which is part of Eclipse and not part of the core Java language so you can't expect them to ship it.
Might be true... For what it's worth: I ran Eclipse on an iBook G3 in 2004 without a single problem. Must have been lucky, I guess
All, in all, I think you could develop Java applications on OS X in Eclipse without a problem. I'm pretty sure many people already do....
Your comparison is not really valid. He lived there for 20 years, and technology didn't come his way at all. Back when he moved there, dialup was the only option and it worked well. His choice back then was good, a nice probably not too expensive place to live with access to the internet. In those 20 years, nothing changed, but the rest of the world moved on. In his situation, I would also look for a way to get a good internet connection without moving. You have to look a this in context.
Sure, if these days, I'd have to move, I'd look at Internet connectivity as a "base necessity". However, if you made your life somewhere, you aren't goint to move just because of one small inconvenient issue. You'd know if you lived somewhere for 20 years.
I can very well relate to him: I live in a very small country and broadband is extremely expensive in comparision to the neighbouring countries and it came very very late. So some of my coworkers (living in a neighbouring country) had 1Mbps DSL while I was still on ISDN. When DSL was launched here it was 256kbps/64kbps, now it is 2Mbps/192kbps but in the neighbouring countries get 8Mbps/256kbps for the same price.
Somewhere in this thread I suggested ISDN, others suggested T1. Expensive (especially T1), yes, but as far as I understood it is for his work so he should be able to offset the costs to his employer.
Already two people mentioned it. Sorry, I overlooked it and I have no experience with satellite dishes at all. Not even for TV, so please cut me some slack. I know now.... One learns something new every day.....
Ehm, I don't think you can even buy slower modems these days. The thing is that modems negotiate with the other side and with a lot of noise on the line, they might agree on slower speeds. Typically below 33.6kbps...
Do you mean GSM cellphones? You might be able to get GPRS in that case. (EDGE would be even better!) That should be between 60kbps and 80kbps, which is equivalent or faster than ISDN. It will be more expensive, but since it's for work, you might be able to offset the costs to your employer. Also, did you look into ISDN offerings? Back in the early nineties, we switched to ISDN and it was a different world from dial-up. Frankly... I know some people do not see ISDN as broadband because of the speed, but well, it would improve your connection a lot.
Finally, you say sattelite is not available... How is that possible? Sattelites are are accessible as long as you can position your dish correctly. I have no experience with it, but I don't think you're bound to your local ISPs for that.
For the "selfmade" option, you could perhaps ask a friend in vicinity that has broadband and make a point-to-point connection between his place and yours. That's of course assuming you have a friend in vicinity that has broadband....
Otherwise, yes, move.... But I wouldn't do it either.
Well since IEEE 802.11n is a (future) standard, just like IEEE 802.3 (you might know it as "Ethernet") or IEEE 1394 (you might know that one as Firewire or i-Link), my brain associated it with "standards" and not with implementations. Guess, we just read that differently. Before posting the reply to your original post, I went to major 802.11n-DRAFT gear vendors, including Apple and Belkin. Since you mention Apple, go and take a look at their 802.11 page and allow me to quote:
These new products use AirPort Extreme wireless technology that's based on an IEEE 802.11n draft specification.
Emphasis mine, of course... The article talks about the fact that one entity doesn't want to sign away its rights to sue for patent infringment. So, nobody has been sued yet... they still might, including Apple. The point is not that it hasn't happened, but that if 802.11n isn't "patent-free" (in the sense "we won't sue if you implement 802.11n), it won't be ratified. This could result in different 802.11n implementations that would not play nice with each other. Standards are a way to play nice with each other. So sure, if everyone says, we'll use 802.11 draft as of June 2007 (or something) and be happy. Then it will be a successful de-facto standard, but you simply have no guarantuee and patent royalties may be due. (This is obviously not a problem for you as an end-user)
The problem is thus as such not *now*, the problem is what the future might bring...
Strange, my reading comprehension must differ, and also the fact that I actually read the article might help. For me it was clear that they were talking about the standard and not the speed. If not ratified "802.11n will not happen". The speed will exist, but it won't be 802.11n. Also, keep in mind that you now have patent infringing hardware, which means that the vendor might be forced to recall all units when losing a lawsuit. (Most porbably, a monetary settlement will be done, but you never know)
I came along a journal entry in the Firehose someday complaining exactly about this problem. Apparently, there is a checkbox saying "make this CD readable on other computers" or something of the like and it's unchecked by default. So those CD's were not coasters, they just were unreadable on a non-Vista PC.
I know the difference between de-jure et de-facto, no worries.... Still, there is a difference, and this difference is quite understandable when you look back at what the vendors did to 802.11g. They extended it to 100Mbps and 'lo and behold it only worked with their own gear at those speeds. Bummer, but completely within their rights. Now, I do realise that 802.11n is in a probably quite stable DRAFT status right now. I also checked with major 802.11n vendors and if they don't say it in big print that the implementation is just based on a DRAFT, it's in the small print.
A standard is supposed to guarantee interopability, and with a de-jure, you'll get that. With a de-facto not so much.... Think of the standard word processor format in use, it is a de-facto standard that is only supported correctly by one product, and not even consistently between versions.
That's the problem you'll get when 802.11n isn't ratified, and that is the risk when you buy 802.11n-DRAFT gear. When I come along with my 802.11n compliant device and your network goes haywire *or* my device cannot connect (assuming you have allowed), who exactly is at fault? Your network of course....
By way of comparison, the 1 GHz AMD Geode runs on about 1 watt of power, and ARM processors can get by for even less.
Great, but where do I get a AMD Geode and a motherboard for it? I'd love to have a silent PC (actually, server: I made the mistake of believing AMD's Cool 'n Quiet hype and it really isn't all that quiet... but enough ranting). I know about Soekris Engineering. The fastest they have is a 600MHz Geode. Probably more than enough for my needs, but they aren't exactly cheap. (I know why, volume, etc...) For the same price, I get a much faster CPU/motherboard comba that's much more performant. Of course, it isn't silent....
Better yet, if you know where to find them in Europe, I'm all ears. (I know where to get the Soekris ones http://www.kd85.com/)
I've been using 802.11n on all my home computers for months now.
No, you haven't... You are using an implementation of a not yet approved standard that could become 802.11n. The "standard" may still change and you may be able to upgrade your hardware with a firmware upgrade if that happens. However, the manufacturer of your gear is in no way obliged to do so, after all, it couldn't sell it as 802.11n gear, since the 802.11n standard isn't yet accepted.
A standard, by definition, does not change....New revisions may come out, but once it's out, it doesn't change. To put it in version numbers: you use 802.11n version 0.9beta, the standard will be 802.11n version 1.0.
I think Vista is going to be the next Windows ME/2000 - a flop that bridges the gap between the really good versions (98SE, XP, 7?
Please don't put ME and 2000 in the same bucket. They are very different beasts. ME was the version after 98, the 9x line died with ME (it stands for "Millenium Edition"). Win2000 on the other hand was the successor of Windows NT 4.0. WinNT 4.0 on itself was a good Windows version, if you knew its quirks. Windows 2000 was a great upgrade on WinNT 4.0, because it added USB support, Plug n' Play, and many other features. Note that the NT line (which includes Win2000) was means for professionals and business users. The 9x line was meant for home users.
XP was the Windows release that merged the home user line with the professional line (Essentially taking the codebase of the professional line for all future OSe). Sure, there are different editions for different usages, but in the end it's the same core. I also want to remind you that many IT professionals found Windows XP a downgrade to Windows 2000. Most of us, in the end, found some features that we really liked, turned of the Fisher Price interface and made it act like Windows 2000 with some extra services that are useful.
To this day, many businesses keep running Windows 2000. It was one of the greatest OSes from Microsoft. I say this to you as someone who dislikes Microsoft, but at least I can admit when they did something right.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the best advice I read in this whole thread.
Nope, liked one of those very very much, but she was too shy, I was too shy.... and well, that doesn't help.
Oh, Really?
Just one (honest) question, I live in a quite small European country (about the size of Los Angeles, you can find out which one on your own) and you really came out here to test with our national telecom operator? Really? That's surprising. I thought that standards like GSM would assure that there is interoperability on any GSM network. That's what standards are for, right?
Not a Mac fanboy, I don't even use one anymore.
All, in all, I think you could develop Java applications on OS X in Eclipse without a problem. I'm pretty sure many people already do....
I'm sorry, but the RFC states the following:
This evidently excludes 4GB flash disks. It might be an interesting extention and I propose to make this RFC 1149.n ;-)
Your comparison is not really valid. He lived there for 20 years, and technology didn't come his way at all. Back when he moved there, dialup was the only option and it worked well. His choice back then was good, a nice probably not too expensive place to live with access to the internet. In those 20 years, nothing changed, but the rest of the world moved on. In his situation, I would also look for a way to get a good internet connection without moving. You have to look a this in context.
Sure, if these days, I'd have to move, I'd look at Internet connectivity as a "base necessity". However, if you made your life somewhere, you aren't goint to move just because of one small inconvenient issue. You'd know if you lived somewhere for 20 years.
I can very well relate to him: I live in a very small country and broadband is extremely expensive in comparision to the neighbouring countries and it came very very late. So some of my coworkers (living in a neighbouring country) had 1Mbps DSL while I was still on ISDN. When DSL was launched here it was 256kbps/64kbps, now it is 2Mbps/192kbps but in the neighbouring countries get 8Mbps/256kbps for the same price.
Somewhere in this thread I suggested ISDN, others suggested T1. Expensive (especially T1), yes, but as far as I understood it is for his work so he should be able to offset the costs to his employer.
Already two people mentioned it. Sorry, I overlooked it and I have no experience with satellite dishes at all. Not even for TV, so please cut me some slack. I know now.... One learns something new every day.....
What part of "Move out of the house my wife and I built and lived in for 20 years." did you miss? People get attached to their homes, you know?
I'm pretty sure the sight out of his window when he wakes up in the morning beats your sight in the morning anyday.
...but it's going to be slower than his current modem and there might be a lot of packet loss due to Hawks ;-)
Ehm, I don't think you can even buy slower modems these days. The thing is that modems negotiate with the other side and with a lot of noise on the line, they might agree on slower speeds. Typically below 33.6kbps...
Sorry, overlooked that... T1 is a good idea, and I did mention ISDN :-D
Do you mean GSM cellphones? You might be able to get GPRS in that case. (EDGE would be even better!) That should be between 60kbps and 80kbps, which is equivalent or faster than ISDN. It will be more expensive, but since it's for work, you might be able to offset the costs to your employer. Also, did you look into ISDN offerings? Back in the early nineties, we switched to ISDN and it was a different world from dial-up. Frankly... I know some people do not see ISDN as broadband because of the speed, but well, it would improve your connection a lot.
Finally, you say sattelite is not available... How is that possible? Sattelites are are accessible as long as you can position your dish correctly. I have no experience with it, but I don't think you're bound to your local ISPs for that.
For the "selfmade" option, you could perhaps ask a friend in vicinity that has broadband and make a point-to-point connection between his place and yours. That's of course assuming you have a friend in vicinity that has broadband....
Otherwise, yes, move.... But I wouldn't do it either.
Well since IEEE 802.11n is a (future) standard, just like IEEE 802.3 (you might know it as "Ethernet") or IEEE 1394 (you might know that one as Firewire or i-Link), my brain associated it with "standards" and not with implementations. Guess, we just read that differently. Before posting the reply to your original post, I went to major 802.11n-DRAFT gear vendors, including Apple and Belkin. Since you mention Apple, go and take a look at their 802.11 page and allow me to quote:
Emphasis mine, of course... The article talks about the fact that one entity doesn't want to sign away its rights to sue for patent infringment. So, nobody has been sued yet... they still might, including Apple. The point is not that it hasn't happened, but that if 802.11n isn't "patent-free" (in the sense "we won't sue if you implement 802.11n), it won't be ratified. This could result in different 802.11n implementations that would not play nice with each other. Standards are a way to play nice with each other. So sure, if everyone says, we'll use 802.11 draft as of June 2007 (or something) and be happy. Then it will be a successful de-facto standard, but you simply have no guarantuee and patent royalties may be due. (This is obviously not a problem for you as an end-user)
The problem is thus as such not *now*, the problem is what the future might bring...
Strange, my reading comprehension must differ, and also the fact that I actually read the article might help. For me it was clear that they were talking about the standard and not the speed. If not ratified "802.11n will not happen". The speed will exist, but it won't be 802.11n. Also, keep in mind that you now have patent infringing hardware, which means that the vendor might be forced to recall all units when losing a lawsuit. (Most porbably, a monetary settlement will be done, but you never know)
I came along a journal entry in the Firehose someday complaining exactly about this problem. Apparently, there is a checkbox saying "make this CD readable on other computers" or something of the like and it's unchecked by default. So those CD's were not coasters, they just were unreadable on a non-Vista PC.
Here is the entry...
Hmmm, after thinking of it... Cellular phones are full-duplex, so I was a bit too fast. Apparently WiMAX is also full-duplex. So, forget this comment.
I write this post on an 802.11G access point (54 megs half duplex).
Funny that you specify that... Do you know any wireless network gear that is full duplex ;-)))
I know the difference between de-jure et de-facto, no worries.... Still, there is a difference, and this difference is quite understandable when you look back at what the vendors did to 802.11g. They extended it to 100Mbps and 'lo and behold it only worked with their own gear at those speeds. Bummer, but completely within their rights. Now, I do realise that 802.11n is in a probably quite stable DRAFT status right now. I also checked with major 802.11n vendors and if they don't say it in big print that the implementation is just based on a DRAFT, it's in the small print.
A standard is supposed to guarantee interopability, and with a de-jure, you'll get that. With a de-facto not so much.... Think of the standard word processor format in use, it is a de-facto standard that is only supported correctly by one product, and not even consistently between versions.
That's the problem you'll get when 802.11n isn't ratified, and that is the risk when you buy 802.11n-DRAFT gear. When I come along with my 802.11n compliant device and your network goes haywire *or* my device cannot connect (assuming you have allowed), who exactly is at fault? Your network of course....
By way of comparison, the 1 GHz AMD Geode runs on about 1 watt of power, and ARM processors can get by for even less.
Great, but where do I get a AMD Geode and a motherboard for it? I'd love to have a silent PC (actually, server: I made the mistake of believing AMD's Cool 'n Quiet hype and it really isn't all that quiet... but enough ranting). I know about Soekris Engineering. The fastest they have is a 600MHz Geode. Probably more than enough for my needs, but they aren't exactly cheap. (I know why, volume, etc...) For the same price, I get a much faster CPU/motherboard comba that's much more performant. Of course, it isn't silent....
Better yet, if you know where to find them in Europe, I'm all ears. (I know where to get the Soekris ones http://www.kd85.com/)
I've been using 802.11n on all my home computers for months now.
No, you haven't... You are using an implementation of a not yet approved standard that could become 802.11n. The "standard" may still change and you may be able to upgrade your hardware with a firmware upgrade if that happens. However, the manufacturer of your gear is in no way obliged to do so, after all, it couldn't sell it as 802.11n gear, since the 802.11n standard isn't yet accepted.
A standard, by definition, does not change....New revisions may come out, but once it's out, it doesn't change. To put it in version numbers: you use 802.11n version 0.9beta, the standard will be 802.11n version 1.0.
Ah, I see now... I didn't read it that way, the slash indicated to me that he meant the two together. My bad.
I think Vista is going to be the next Windows ME/2000 - a flop that bridges the gap between the really good versions (98SE, XP, 7?
Please don't put ME and 2000 in the same bucket. They are very different beasts. ME was the version after 98, the 9x line died with ME (it stands for "Millenium Edition"). Win2000 on the other hand was the successor of Windows NT 4.0. WinNT 4.0 on itself was a good Windows version, if you knew its quirks. Windows 2000 was a great upgrade on WinNT 4.0, because it added USB support, Plug n' Play, and many other features. Note that the NT line (which includes Win2000) was means for professionals and business users. The 9x line was meant for home users.
XP was the Windows release that merged the home user line with the professional line (Essentially taking the codebase of the professional line for all future OSe). Sure, there are different editions for different usages, but in the end it's the same core. I also want to remind you that many IT professionals found Windows XP a downgrade to Windows 2000. Most of us, in the end, found some features that we really liked, turned of the Fisher Price interface and made it act like Windows 2000 with some extra services that are useful.
To this day, many businesses keep running Windows 2000. It was one of the greatest OSes from Microsoft. I say this to you as someone who dislikes Microsoft, but at least I can admit when they did something right.
Why? Because you could legally drink? I could do that years before that, at 16 actually...
How often does that happen? I understand the reasoning, but the odds are as high as winning the lottery.