Actually, I did try a BSD on the Centris, and got everything working except for the ethernet. It was an AV Centris, which seems to cause complications because of its onboard chipset. Anyone care to elaborate on that? I can't remember the chipset name exactly, but "Strong" or "Tough" is ringing a strange association bell in my mind.
Thanks for the info on BSD for the IIsi. Perhaps I'l give it a go.
One more question... what about Linux/BSD on a NewbBus PowerPC? I have some of the funkiest Macs, don't I?:)
I have a couple of IIsi's lying around, and thought it would be nice to try Linux on them. I couldn't find any reference to anyone ever getting any dist/kernel working on one... there were some references to it working without the keyboard...??? My question was how did they know it was working if they couldn't type a login? It probably suffices to say I never got around to trying it; the IIsi's on the shelf were as good without Linux on them as they would be with keyboardless-Linux on them.:)
Next attempt was a Centris... I seem to remember I had problems matching a driver for the wierd-ass built-in ethernet.
Thus ends my exciting tale of putting Linux on old Macs. Perhaps if I had the right old Macs....:)
Yes, that's true. Yet, for some reason 7.6 is still locked down as non free, and in fact is more expensive than a new copy of OS9. I have never been able to figure this one out, and countless Macintosh reps I have talked to have no idea why Apple continues to cling so tightly to thier remaining copies of that version.
Why is everyone so certain that Apple was going to put Radeon in the cube? AppleInsider seems to be the source of this rumor.
You can't put a graphics chip that requires a fan in a silent computer, now can you? Surely the case design was done well in advance of Steve Jobs' speech, and cube case design is dependant on the fanless architecture. They were going to go with the 128 all along. Perhaps Steve did snub ATI, but I say good for him! Look on the bright side; perhaps the 128 in the cube is the last ATI chipset to be used in Macs! I'll wait for the "Cube DV" with a different (manufacturers) chipset.:)
Private individuals wouldn't be too put out as there's little need that I can see for one person controlling or owning more than 5 domain names
Yes, and because not many people own domains, there might be many business propositions to be made, large company to private individual:
Ominous voice: Hello, Mr. X, how'd you like to buy a domain name for me. I'll provide the redirection page and everything, and I'll give you some free hosted space for your own site. I would give you...
What I honestly don't understand is why they even bother to continue to expand the TLD space.
Think about it. Every dot.com that's any dot com is going to snatch up its corresponding dot.shop or dot.tel or dot.whatever and redirect it to the original site. Any dot.com that doesn't do this will be playing catchup for a seriously long time. Sure, domain squatters may make this difficult, but in the long run, the dot.coms and the dot.whatevers will all be the same anyway.
If someone snatches up something.shop and something.com wants to get the address from them, they'll pay to get it.
So what's the point? Business for domain name registrars, I guess.
Arrrrgggggggg! I will beat the dead horse one more time.
If you have a larger monitor, you can display more PAGES at ACTUAL size. This is what I have been saying all along. If you have a smaller monitor, you can not. At one point in the original article they mentioned that this is very useful in some situations. I agree. I have done newspaper layout before... I want to see a bunch of pages at the same time, at ACTUAL size. Not half size. 100ppi has always been good enough to do this... now give me a bigger monitor.
A monitor at 100ppi has plenty of clarity to display text on an ordinary printed page (about 12pt) at actual size. I know, I have one. I never said that it would be great when fonts rendered 4 pixels high at actual size... of course that's true, but who puts text like this on a PRINTED PAGE? Even with your fancy 1200 dpi printer, you can't read it.
As far as the cost goes... we are talking about a LCD display here, not a CRT. They've been doing approx. 100ppi transistors for a long time now... I know, I have them in my laptop's screen. Making them 1/4 the size of that makes each one more expensive, naturally. Yes, they may be more energy efficient, but that's not the point. By making something using 4000000 cheapo 100ppi transistors, you've just saved money, instead of making something out of 4000000 expensive 200ppi ones.
Say a screen is, for sake of easy math, 10 inches x 10 inches, 200ppi. This means the resolution is 2000x2000. We could fit one "sheet of paper" on this, at 200ppi.
Now imagine a screen twice the physical size (20x20), with 100ppi. The resolution is still 2000x2000. You can fit 4 sheets on this screen, though, because of it's *physical* size, not the size of the resolution.
With technology like ClearType, there is no reason that a page can't be displayed at just as clearly to the human eye at 100ppi as at 200ppi... and with a physically bigger monitor, you can have more "actual size" sheets per page. Plus, this bigger monitor is probably cheaper... it's the same screen, only the pixels are not so sub-microscopic, and probably easier to produce.
Not that a vector based format for photos would work, though. There are too many things that can not be accurately described by vectors, and even if they could be, the amount of data required to describe them would be enormous... exponentially more than a similarly detailed pixel format. Still, 10 megs of pixel data for an image on a monitor with half the pixel size will look 1/4 of the size it previously did, which means that 4 times the data is required to take advantage of the added resolution. If you blow up the 10 meg file 4 times, you don't take advantage of the higher resolution anyway, unless you take into account anti-aliasing. Lots to mull over. In the mean time, whatever happened to the Photoshop-Illustrator hybrid that Adobe was talking about? It might be a step in the right direction.
That really sounds like the way things should be headed in a future of 200ppi, 300ppi, perhaps even someday 400ppi displays. Suddenly, the pixel means very little in the world of imaging.
the monitor was more like 100ppi, or even down to 72ppi, like most "normal" monitors. You'd be able to get 8 "pieces of paper" on the screen at once, at a resolution the human eye can actually cope with.
And the windows icons wouldn't look like specks of dust....
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I did try a BSD on the Centris, and got everything working except for the ethernet. It was an AV Centris, which seems to cause complications because of its onboard chipset. Anyone care to elaborate on that? I can't remember the chipset name exactly, but "Strong" or "Tough" is ringing a strange association bell in my mind.
:)
Thanks for the info on BSD for the IIsi. Perhaps I'l give it a go.
One more question... what about Linux/BSD on a NewbBus PowerPC? I have some of the funkiest Macs, don't I?
I have a couple of IIsi's lying around, and thought it would be nice to try Linux on them. I couldn't find any reference to anyone ever getting any dist/kernel working on one... there were some references to it working without the keyboard...??? My question was how did they know it was working if they couldn't type a login? It probably suffices to say I never got around to trying it; the IIsi's on the shelf were as good without Linux on them as they would be with keyboardless-Linux on them. :)
:)
Next attempt was a Centris... I seem to remember I had problems matching a driver for the wierd-ass built-in ethernet.
Thus ends my exciting tale of putting Linux on old Macs. Perhaps if I had the right old Macs....
Yes, that's true. Yet, for some reason 7.6 is still locked down as non free, and in fact is more expensive than a new copy of OS9. I have never been able to figure this one out, and countless Macintosh reps I have talked to have no idea why Apple continues to cling so tightly to thier remaining copies of that version.
Any ideas?
Is a lecture on what Mhz mean as it relates to processing power really required? *sigh....*
Let's put it this way. x86 flushes its CPU cycles down the toilet.
Why is everyone so certain that Apple was going to put Radeon in the cube? AppleInsider seems to be the source of this rumor.
:)
You can't put a graphics chip that requires a fan in a silent computer, now can you? Surely the case design was done well in advance of Steve Jobs' speech, and cube case design is dependant on the fanless architecture. They were going to go with the 128 all along. Perhaps Steve did snub ATI, but I say good for him! Look on the bright side; perhaps the 128 in the cube is the last ATI chipset to be used in Macs! I'll wait for the "Cube DV" with a different (manufacturers) chipset.
Private individuals wouldn't be too put out as there's little need that I can see for one person controlling or owning more than 5 domain names
Yes, and because not many people own domains, there might be many business propositions to be made, large company to private individual:
Ominous voice: Hello, Mr. X, how'd you like to buy a domain name for me. I'll provide the redirection page and everything, and I'll give you some free hosted space for your own site. I would give you...
Even more ominous voice: Five *thousand* dollars.
Mr. X Sure, thanks!
so why don't we remove the extra, meaningless designation on the end?
.com commercials on TV?
If we did that, then what would become of
Ominous voice:Visit daytradeandshopinyourpjs dot com
Quite honestly, I would miss the ominous voice. He makes it so I don't watch commercials anymore, and I enjoy that.
Slashdot.org
Slashdot.com
Hmmm....
What I honestly don't understand is why they even bother to continue to expand the TLD space.
Think about it. Every dot.com that's any dot com is going to snatch up its corresponding dot.shop or dot.tel or dot.whatever and redirect it to the original site. Any dot.com that doesn't do this will be playing catchup for a seriously long time. Sure, domain squatters may make this difficult, but in the long run, the dot.coms and the dot.whatevers will all be the same anyway.
If someone snatches up something.shop and something.com wants to get the address from them, they'll pay to get it.
So what's the point? Business for domain name registrars, I guess.
Arrrrgggggggg! I will beat the dead horse one more time.
:)
If you have a larger monitor, you can display more PAGES at ACTUAL size. This is what I have been saying all along. If you have a smaller monitor, you can not. At one point in the original article they mentioned that this is very useful in some situations. I agree. I have done newspaper layout before... I want to see a bunch of pages at the same time, at ACTUAL size. Not half size. 100ppi has always been good enough to do this... now give me a bigger monitor.
A monitor at 100ppi has plenty of clarity to display text on an ordinary printed page (about 12pt) at actual size. I know, I have one. I never said that it would be great when fonts rendered 4 pixels high at actual size... of course that's true, but who puts text like this on a PRINTED PAGE? Even with your fancy 1200 dpi printer, you can't read it.
As far as the cost goes... we are talking about a LCD display here, not a CRT. They've been doing approx. 100ppi transistors for a long time now... I know, I have them in my laptop's screen. Making them 1/4 the size of that makes each one more expensive, naturally. Yes, they may be more energy efficient, but that's not the point. By making something using 4000000 cheapo 100ppi transistors, you've just saved money, instead of making something out of 4000000 expensive 200ppi ones.
ClearType is only icing on the cake after that.
I hope I have made it clear that time.
No, that's not quite what I was getting at.
Say a screen is, for sake of easy math, 10 inches x 10 inches, 200ppi. This means the resolution is 2000x2000. We could fit one "sheet of paper" on this, at 200ppi.
Now imagine a screen twice the physical size (20x20), with 100ppi. The resolution is still 2000x2000. You can fit 4 sheets on this screen, though, because of it's *physical* size, not the size of the resolution.
With technology like ClearType, there is no reason that a page can't be displayed at just as clearly to the human eye at 100ppi as at 200ppi... and with a physically bigger monitor, you can have more "actual size" sheets per page. Plus, this bigger monitor is probably cheaper... it's the same screen, only the pixels are not so sub-microscopic, and probably easier to produce.
Not that a vector based format for photos would work, though. There are too many things that can not be accurately described by vectors, and even if they could be, the amount of data required to describe them would be enormous... exponentially more than a similarly detailed pixel format. Still, 10 megs of pixel data for an image on a monitor with half the pixel size will look 1/4 of the size it previously did, which means that 4 times the data is required to take advantage of the added resolution. If you blow up the 10 meg file 4 times, you don't take advantage of the higher resolution anyway, unless you take into account anti-aliasing. Lots to mull over. In the mean time, whatever happened to the Photoshop-Illustrator hybrid that Adobe was talking about? It might be a step in the right direction.
That really sounds like the way things should be headed in a future of 200ppi, 300ppi, perhaps even someday 400ppi displays. Suddenly, the pixel means very little in the world of imaging.
;)
Oh, I will miss my Photoshop.
Hmmm... a vector based format for photos...
the monitor was more like 100ppi, or even down to 72ppi, like most "normal" monitors. You'd be able to get 8 "pieces of paper" on the screen at once, at a resolution the human eye can actually cope with.
And the windows icons wouldn't look like specks of dust....