Well, supposedly WinXP includes a compatibilty layer for the really crufty stuff (like DOS games), and has more support for joysticks and the like. Personally, I care more about OSX compatibility now:)
For the 2.6 series to support "direct neural interfaces", much of the work will have to be done now, as 2.6x will be a "stable" version of 2.5x (which has just started.) So start coding now.
Apple's scheme is annoying. I recently needed to reinstall my Perl libraries-- I deleted them accidentally. In order to reinstall, I had to install 10.0 first (so that the 10.1 installer would be able to "upgrade", and then install 10.1. Needless to say, I was pissed...
My guards are paid extremely well, and for that, I expect absolute loyalty. A number of individuals have already tried to assault my lair, and warrant or no warrant, they all have been fed to my cybernetic sea bass.
Exactly-- the panes just get in the way. MacOSX also has things called "drawers", but they don't bother me as much, primarily because the resulting window is irregular (and thus, small apps, or the edges of underlying windows can be tucked into into the unused space. (I'm neglecting the posssibility that the User Interface Guidelines suggest that panes and drawers are seperate idioms, intended for different types of data)
I hate panes, and I use many overlapping windows. With overlapping windows, I get to decide what's relevant. With frames/panes, I have to rely on the personal preferences of the developer. With overlapping windows, I can make those decisions for myself.
I run several applications simultaneously-- debuggers, terminals, a web browser, email. etc. If I were to rely on panes, each pane/tile would be too small to read. Overlapping windows allows me to glimpse at my mailbox while writing this reply...
BTW, I greatly prefer Meetrowerks's GUI to the excessively paned KDevelop or (Ughh) Visual C++).
Running XFree86 on my iBook allows me to freely use GNU software when I need to. I use a number of free software packages on a daily basis-- including emacs, xemacs, octave, gnuplot, perl, and lyx. It's not a seamless interface, but then, it doesn't have to be.
That said, I don't really need GNOME. I have the MacOSX finder, and it's far more convenient for me to use the Apple provided interface for file management, cut/paste, printing, etc. So while I might be interested in picking up and improving free software from the GNOME project, the core motivation behind the project-- a consistent, easy to use interface to Linux/(Free|Open|Net)BSD is not something that interests me, as a MacOSX user.
Historical Footnote: nVidia's NV1 and NV2 chipsets used Quads instead of Triangles. The NV2 chipset was never produced, due in part to chronic bugginess.
I don't think its that simple. Researchers are no t simply employees ofthe university, to be managed as some bean counters see fit. Researchers typically are engaged on their own projects-- projects chosen not on the basis of how much income the University might recieve, but rather on how such a project contributes to scientific understanding.
As for free source-- I've been porting various bits and pieces into fink. I've run across many licenses that explicitly forbid (or otherwise restrict) republication of modified source code-- usually on the grounds that this can make validation of program results difficult. And, of course, scientific publication has a tradition of citin previous works. The BSD advertising clause enforces this (with mixed results).
Restrictive usage terms can limit the amount of testing and validation a computer program is subject to. For example, many genomics programs use models of probability to help a researcher determine the statistical significance of a particular result. These models have not been fully tested, but widescale usage of a program will help the researchers more accurately access significance. Propriatary licensing hinders this process, and encourages labs to develop their own tools--sometimes an inefficient, error prone process.
QT is C++ from the ground up, GTK-- is wrapping GTK++.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither "signal:" not "slot" are C++ constructs. You still have to use the moc utility to translate your code into standard "C++".
QT is C++ only to the extent that "Objective C++" can be considered C++.
When Wolfenstein3D first came out, the graphics were rather poor, and framerates are nowhere near today's standard. So, a bit of seasickness was to be expected. Additionally, there's a bit of cognitive disconnect involved-- screen motion does not translate into real motion.
My guess is that those people who suffered from nausea, etc, don't play first person shooters any more-- thus, few complaints.
I think we can all agree that when it comes to 2D interfaces, clarity, speed, and refresh rate are all very important. However, in the 3D world, artifacts are much more common. Card have gotten much more refined since the days of my Trident 975AGP (A real POS, btw, compared to most if not all of the cards of its time), which habitually stuttered, rendered textures incorrectly, and generally detracted from my gaming experience, but some modern cards (Radeon 7500/8500) still sacrifice accuracy for the sake of framerate. Even the latest GForce isn't 100% accurate.
Until 3D quality is indistinguishable from today's 2D quality, the use of 3D windows for most work will provide an inferior user experience.
Actually, I think Microsoft is probably less interested in preventing emulators than in preventing the system from being used as a cheap Linux system.
I think we're all familiar with the peculier economics of the XBox-- Microsoft loses a good deal of money (~100 dollars, perhaps) on each XBox. They make the money on each game sold.
So, there are three unorthodox possibilities
Linux installed on Xbox: Microsoft and its cronies sell zero games. MS will hate this, particularly if (in your dreams) quality games come out for XBox/Linux. I'm not sure if any Linux for XBox will be suitable for much more than distributed computing-- in which case, a box with similar capabilities (without the fancy graphics) chipset could serve just as well.
XBox emulator on a state of the art PC: probably hard to manage, but since it allows Microsoft to make money off gamesales without the loss-leading XBox hardware, MS might encourage this-- if and only if the quality was high enough to not reflect poorly of genuine X-Box platforms.
Reverse Engineering of game development kit:
No more royalties to Microsoft...
Microsoft will throw a hissy fit, and release the lawyers.
It might be interesting if someone produced a disc containing the uncut film-- but with the option to view the film as it played in various countries.
For instance, after Stanley Kubrick dies, the studios produced a cut of "Eyes wide shut" with much of the nudity obscured by digitally inserted persons. Given that the good doctor went to the orgy as a voyeur, it makes little sense that he would only seek to view couplings that were obscured...
The British cut replaces the orgy's soundtrack-- as the original included bits of Hindu sacred music. As such, the uncut film with original soundtrack is unavailable. Being able to choose between unrated, British and American cuts might be both education and entertaining.
Please-- no funky windows XP themes. I've recently downloaded IE 6.0, and found it to "fuzzy." Maybe I'm supposed to squint and think that the blue smears/drop shadows are supposed to be pretty?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, supposedly WinXP includes a compatibilty layer for the really crufty stuff (like DOS games), and has more support for joysticks and the like. Personally, I care more about OSX compatibility now :)
Windows 2k doesn't support games as well as 95/98 does. Supposedly, XP fixes this...
SB AWE64 for a soundcard?
If you want to add DVD to your system, you're better off with a sound card that is capable of 48 KHz output.
quite right. Why should we use "conservative" estimates?
For the 2.6 series to support "direct neural interfaces", much of the work will have to be done now, as 2.6x will be a "stable" version of 2.5x (which has just started.) So start coding now.
Apple's scheme is annoying. I recently needed to reinstall my Perl libraries-- I deleted them accidentally. In order to reinstall, I had to install 10.0 first (so that the 10.1 installer would be able to "upgrade", and then install 10.1. Needless to say, I was pissed...
That's why the're cybernetic...
My guards are paid extremely well, and for that, I expect absolute loyalty. A number of individuals have already tried to assault my lair, and warrant or no warrant, they all have been fed to my cybernetic sea bass.
A subwoofer alone can't replicate a howitzer. A good sharp crisp sound of a large artillery piece contains higher frequency components.
Or, perhaps, Project Builder on Mac OS X?
Exactly-- the panes just get in the way. MacOSX also has things called "drawers", but they don't bother me as much, primarily because the resulting window is irregular (and thus, small apps, or the edges of underlying windows can be tucked into into the unused space. (I'm neglecting the posssibility that the User Interface Guidelines suggest that panes and drawers are seperate idioms, intended for different types of data)
I hate panes, and I use many overlapping windows. With overlapping windows, I get to decide what's relevant. With frames/panes, I have to rely on the personal preferences of the developer. With overlapping windows, I can make those decisions for myself.
I run several applications simultaneously-- debuggers, terminals, a web browser, email. etc. If I were to rely on panes, each pane/tile would be too small to read. Overlapping windows allows me to glimpse at my mailbox while writing this reply...
BTW, I greatly prefer Meetrowerks's GUI to the excessively paned KDevelop or (Ughh) Visual C++).
On the SGI, the wheel widget is part of the window. Although "Set View Options" is sometimes useful, it's less convenient.
Running XFree86 on my iBook allows me to freely use GNU software when I need to. I use a number of free software packages on a daily basis-- including emacs, xemacs, octave, gnuplot, perl, and lyx. It's not a seamless interface, but then, it doesn't have to be.
That said, I don't really need GNOME. I have the MacOSX finder, and it's far more convenient for me to use the Apple provided interface for file management, cut/paste, printing, etc. So while I might be interested in picking up and improving free software from the GNOME project, the core motivation behind the project-- a consistent, easy to use interface to Linux/(Free|Open|Net)BSD is not something that interests me, as a MacOSX user.
Historical Footnote: nVidia's NV1 and NV2 chipsets used Quads instead of Triangles. The NV2 chipset was never produced, due in part to chronic bugginess.
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/features/nv2/
ATI has had hardware iDCT support since the Rage128 series.
I don't think its that simple. Researchers are no t simply employees ofthe university, to be managed as some bean counters see fit. Researchers typically are engaged on their own projects-- projects chosen not on the basis of how much income the University might recieve, but rather on how such a project contributes to scientific understanding.
As for free source-- I've been porting various bits and pieces into fink. I've run across many licenses that explicitly forbid (or otherwise restrict) republication of modified source code-- usually on the grounds that this can make validation of program results difficult. And, of course, scientific publication has a tradition of citin previous works. The BSD advertising clause enforces this (with mixed results).
Restrictive usage terms can limit the amount of testing and validation a computer program is subject to. For example, many genomics programs use models of probability to help a researcher determine the statistical significance of a particular result. These models have not been fully tested, but widescale usage of a program will help the researchers more accurately access significance. Propriatary licensing hinders this process, and encourages labs to develop their own tools--sometimes an inefficient, error prone process.
This patent seems very much like gopher--(an early, not as free, precursor to the web). See rfc 1436 Gopher dates to ~1991.
QT is C++ from the ground up, GTK-- is wrapping GTK++. Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither "signal:" not "slot" are C++ constructs. You still have to use the moc utility to translate your code into standard "C++". QT is C++ only to the extent that "Objective C++" can be considered C++.
When Wolfenstein3D first came out, the graphics were rather poor, and framerates are nowhere near today's standard. So, a bit of seasickness was to be expected. Additionally, there's a bit of cognitive disconnect involved-- screen motion does not translate into real motion.
My guess is that those people who suffered from nausea, etc, don't play first person shooters any more-- thus, few complaints.
I think we can all agree that when it comes to 2D interfaces, clarity, speed, and refresh rate are all very important. However, in the 3D world, artifacts are much more common. Card have gotten much more refined since the days of my Trident 975AGP (A real POS, btw, compared to most if not all of the cards of its time), which habitually stuttered, rendered textures incorrectly, and generally detracted from my gaming experience, but some modern cards (Radeon 7500/8500) still sacrifice accuracy for the sake of framerate. Even the latest GForce isn't 100% accurate.
Until 3D quality is indistinguishable from today's 2D quality, the use of 3D windows for most work will provide an inferior user experience.
Actually, I think Microsoft is probably less interested in preventing emulators than in preventing the system from being used as a cheap Linux system.
I think we're all familiar with the peculier economics of the XBox-- Microsoft loses a good deal of money (~100 dollars, perhaps) on each XBox. They make the money on each game sold.
So, there are three unorthodox possibilities
Linux installed on Xbox: Microsoft and its cronies sell zero games. MS will hate this, particularly if (in your dreams) quality games come out for XBox/Linux. I'm not sure if any Linux for XBox will be suitable for much more than distributed computing-- in which case, a box with similar capabilities (without the fancy graphics) chipset could serve just as well.
XBox emulator on a state of the art PC: probably hard to manage, but since it allows Microsoft to make money off gamesales without the loss-leading XBox hardware, MS might encourage this-- if and only if the quality was high enough to not reflect poorly of genuine X-Box platforms.
Reverse Engineering of game development kit:
No more royalties to Microsoft...
Microsoft will throw a hissy fit, and release the lawyers.
It might be interesting if someone produced a disc containing the uncut film-- but with the option to view the film as it played in various countries.
For instance, after Stanley Kubrick dies, the studios produced a cut of "Eyes wide shut" with much of the nudity obscured by digitally inserted persons. Given that the good doctor went to the orgy as a voyeur, it makes little sense that he would only seek to view couplings that were obscured...
The British cut replaces the orgy's soundtrack-- as the original included bits of Hindu sacred music. As such, the uncut film with original soundtrack is unavailable. Being able to choose between unrated, British and American cuts might be both education and entertaining.
I'd like an option to play those scenes in slow-motion.
The X-Box reminds you of Nader? After all that hard work Nader's put into criticizing Microsoft's anti-competitive activity?
Please-- no funky windows XP themes. I've recently downloaded IE 6.0, and found it to "fuzzy." Maybe I'm supposed to squint and think that the blue smears/drop shadows are supposed to be pretty?
In very early releases of slashdot, one could gain karma by using the +1 bonus...