Well it's ok to have the same password for everything.
I have to disagree. At *minimum* you should have two passwords, one that you use for throw-away junk (random web site registrations, etc) and one for stuff that matters (banking, etc). Many web sites store passwords in plain-text, and you never know who is running it or has access to that.
So you leave a message on some forum one day, bitching about your online banking's lack of Mozilla support. The "admin" of that forum decides to try your forum password in at said bank, and successfully logs into your account.
I've seen it happen.
Most people (except for the real geeks, maybe) follow a pattern in their passwords. If you know the pattern, it makes the job easier.
This is true. I'd say more people follow a pattern rather than use the same exact password, if only because everything you log in to has different password requirements. Some want 8 characters, others require at least one letter and one digit. Some make you change it periodically, so they may just increment a number. But essentially it's the same password, or really easy to find the pattern and try alternatives.
So if the techie needs your password, change it to "abc123" and give him that. When he's done, change it back to the original.
On a Unix system, there's no reason they would ever need your password. They can change it, saving the original hash, and replace the hash when they're done. On Windows, the rules no longer apply, and your solution would probably be the best...
It's really not that hard. I've found Best Buy to be good about issuing rebates, if not a little slow about it. I picked up a 52x CDRW for $25 after rebates, and a stick of 128 MB PC_133 for $7.99.
I just set aside 10 minutes, filled out all the information, and mailed the rebate forms out. $100, that I used to justify buying more computer stuff off of eBay.
I'll admit, I always used to let rebates slip, but I've made it a point recently to keep the receipts on the kitchen table until I send them in. It really does only take ten minutes. People like you (which I used to be, and I know there are many others) allow me to get great prices on things. Best Buy always has great rebates going on in any given week - I almost never buy computer components there unless there's a good price -- which inevitably involves a rebate or two.
They often lose the privacy the rest of us have or the right to vote.
Not true. You can't vote while serving time for a felony conviction. You can vote after that, and you can even exercise your right to vote while in jail awaiting trial (before you are convicted).
Their property is forfeitted, and educational aid is often denied.
The property thing I don't know first hand. I have heard of this happening.
But educational aid denied? Can you give an example of this? I can provide a few examples where a convicted felon received a Pell grant and Stafford loans, even with piss-poor credit history.
Why not cut off their ability to make a living? Hell, make them non-persons, brand an "F" onto their foreheads and leave them to the dogs...
Unfortunately you will find that most people will automatically reject a potential employee based on a prior criminal record. You dare check that "Yes" box on an application, and you won't even be considered in most cases.
Overall we're in agreement, but the right to vote and educational aid issues are simply not true in my experience.
But "Of course, they want copies of the changes". Do they inherit the copyright to the changes? Can they then release your code as their own? Can they use your code in other products?
It's all in the article. I quote:
If it is altered in a generally useful way, such as to work optimally with a particular processor, Mundie said Microsoft expects the alterer to license the new version back to itself, for free, for incorporation into future versions.
But if it is altered to work particularly in one device, with "value-added engineering," the modifier retains ownership of the changed portions, although it must sublicense a copy to Microsoft.
Microsoft pledges it won't incorporate the changed portions into CE for six months after the modifier begins selling its product. It says it will pay no royalties to such alterers, because "it's of mutual benefit," Mundie said.
(italics mine)
In all I see this as a good thing. They can't beat open source, and are testing the waters with their embeded product. This is a good choice, since embeded development would probably benefit most from having the source available.
All I know is I'll quit using Mozilla and will start a port of Konqueror to Winblows if that irritating tab bug [mozilla.org] isn't fixed in 1.4.
I hate that one too. I frequently middle-click (open in new tab) links from Slashdot, for example. Frequently the link times out. I'd like to be able to switch to that tab and reload, but when I do, the URL isn't there -- it reloads the blank page. Usually by this point I've already moved elsewhere in the/. window and it makes it a major pain to keep trying the URL.
Of course, it's not a major issue, but a minor annoyance. Often I'll be manually piecing together an URL, and need to look at another tab for a second (what was that directory name again?) and -- bam -- I've lost what I'd typed. I'm now in the habit of copying what I had to the clipboard first, but that shouldn't be necessary.
when it comes to usability, [smooth scrolling] is a real irritating stuff
I agree. It's the first thing I turn off if I have to use IE.
I almost never, ever use MSIE. However, I think the "smoothness" of smooth scrolling depends on your video hardware. On my main system, with an NVidia geForce ti4600 the scrolling is nice. I'd almost say it was better with my old card (Voodoo3).
But of course on my laptop (crappy Trident chip) it's painful to sit through. It seems to block all user input and use 100% CPU for the full one second-per-line it takes to scroll.
It seems like it's just scrolling the page a pixel at a time, and then jumping to the desired position after some time goes by (causing the "jerky" effect some have pointed out). Ideally it should be time-based, moving as many pixels at a time as are necessary to be smooth on whatever hardware is running. I'll have to see how Mozilla handles this, and if it's any better than MSIE's implementation...
In all, when it is actually smooth and fast, I like the feature, but of course not enough to actually make me use MSIE...
0x0 If the bit is set to 0, the packet has no evil intent. Hosts,
network elements, etc., SHOULD assume that the packet is
harmless, and SHOULD NOT take any defensive measures. (We note
that this part of the spec is already implemented by many common
desktop operating systems.)
0x1 If the bit is set to 1, the packet has evil intent. Secure
systems SHOULD try to defend themselves against such packets.
Insecure systems MAY chose to crash, be penetrated, etc.
That item now shows on Wal-Mart as "Not Available at this time".
I just noticed it also says "Only available online". I picked mine up in the store. I wonder if my local Walmart has more, I'm tempted to pick up a second one...
How is it for DVDs? I need to replace my 21" NEC MultiSync...
I don't have a DVD drive, but it does full-screen Divx nicely. Full motion video isn't blurry at all. Games show a little blur, but the refresh rate is generally higher with games than typical 30 fps video...
I would imagine it would do nicely with DVD. I'll have to test that on another PC out of curiosity. Hm, that's another nice thing: having a larger monitor I can easily tote around with me...
I have found that the actual LCD screen can be relatively inexpensive, while the controller is much more expensive.
At what resolution? Think about the fact that, as the screen grows larger, the surface area grows exponentially. So does the probability of defects (very high with LCD displays), and so does the cost.
That's why you'll find small color LCD screens everywhere -- ATMs, gas pumps, portable TVs, etc. Larger ones are much more expensive to manufacture, and that cost is passed on.
I hate to reply to my own comment, but regarding the price similarities between a laptop and a stand-alone LCD. For $1000 you aren't going to get a laptop with a good screen (or a good anything else, really). Not with a wide viewing angle, good resolution resampling, etc...
My Presario cost me $1500 in 2000, and its display is horrible. Resampling is simple pixel-doubling, which is impossible to read. Viewing angle is on the order of 15-degrees (possibly exagerated, but it's pretty bad). Backlight never turns off until it's powered down (no display standby). And of course it's only 13.3 inches.
Compare that to a $650 Samsung a friend bought, also in 2000: 15-inch, decent (better) viewing angle, analog connection, etc. Not to mention the $400 Microtek I mentioned above.
I think if you shop around, and compare feature-for-feature, you'll find that the situation isn't really that bad. Find a laptop with a 15-inch display and good features. Now find that $1000 one you mentioned; there's going to be a lot of differences.
Finally, televisions are a different beast. You need hardware to handle scan-conversions, TV reception, composite/S-video conversions, etc. There's just more to it. Plus, I'd imagine (I haven't looked) that an LCD television would support HDTV or, at least, high-resolution inputs (game consoles, PC, DVD?)
I thought the same thing for quite a while, but then I stumbled on this at my local Walmart. For $400, I got an 18-inch LCD.
It has an analog VGA connector (a good thing for me; most of my PCs lack digital output), a 160-degree viewing angle (I didn't think that was even possible -- 180 would be viewing completely from the side), 1280x1024 native resolution, and does a great job resampling other resolutions. I can't prove it yet, but I am pretty sure it uses subpixel rendering when resizing lower resolutions.
So all the things I didn't like about LCDs a couple years ago -- limited viewing angle, bad resampling, digital-only connector, small size, and of course price -- are solved with this Walmart cheapo.
I'm sure it won't last all that long, but for the price, it's really nice, easy on the eyes, and much sharper than my last monitor (an aging Trinitron).
So, at one month old, mine has convinced me to never go back to a CRT.
Oh, and in games or full-screen video it rocks. You still only get 60 actual refreshes a second, but that's more than enough (and unlike a CRT the light is constant anyway). Fast motion can be a tiny bit blurry, but nothing like my crappy Compaq laptop... and in games, the blur actually looks better in my opinion -- more realistic (or I'm just goofy)...
Where the hell does DRM come into this? The official criteria for Windows Logo Certification has nothing to do with DRM. It involes:
- Obtaining a certificate from Verisign ($400) - Adhering to certain Windows Standards (noting that MS Office 2000 and Media Player would not pass)
That's it. There are no DRM requirements, just making sure your software a) works with the latest Windows version and follows certain standards (not very strict), and b) is code-signed to ensure it is published exactly the way you released it (signed by you, with your own key).
As I said in this topic earlier, most animals recognize good and respond in kind. As it happens, humans are basically animals. So humans validate good deeds appropriately.
I agree to a point. Some use that argument to show that having any sort of registration/licensing scheme is unnecessary, and that pushes the argument a bit too far (I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not).
I find that most people are honest after a tiny bit of influence. I mean, how many people do you know that paid for WinZip (for home use, not business)? The program works forever without paying, and has one, tiny little nag at startup.
Now, if WinZip disabled itself after 30 days, or had some other limitations, I suspect a lot more end-users would register. They are targetting site-licensing for businesses more than anything, though, which I suspect is why they would rather everyone else use it (and get used to it) for free.
So yeah, most people are honest -- most people won't download a crack or keygen, I believe -- but only with a little bit of pushing.
The lock on my front door doesn't keep out criminals; it keeps the "honest people honest" as they say...
PS as to the market being limited, two things. First, yes, but growing! Second, sure so target where it is in large use. Like servers.
Agreed -- the two examples I gave (NcFTPd and http-analyze) did exactly that. My point was that for desktop software (and games), the market is pretty small. I run Linux on a few systems, and will only run either Linux or FreeBSD on a server. But on the desktop, I have tri-boot on my laptop, mostly for novelty, coding/testing, etc; I rarely use it in a desktop environment, really... as such I would never pay for desktop software for that system... and I know a few others who are the same way with Linux on the desktop: it's there because it's fun to play with, but once they want to do some serious work they're back on the Windows box (or partition)...
So, out of curiosity, HOW well does it work for you? Pizza money? Cool toy money? Computer system money? New Car money? House money? Screw this full time job money?
I was actually forced to do this full-time; my job searching has turned up nothing in the last year or so... I used to do consulting (PHP/MySQL) work, and where 2 years ago I'd get several calls a week, the last year has gotten me nowhere. I even did a week-long stint doing warranty repairs on Gateway PCs...
So in the mean time, between Monster.com searches, I worked on my shareware. Did an update (rewrite) to my DJ software, and finished a new project (sound editor), and now, things are picking up to "pays the rent". Having two products nearly doubled my income, and I can afford to spend most of my time working on shareware (you quickly learn that coding is only about 20% of it; the rest is marketing, advertising, business junk... ugh!)
So, while it's not exactly "Screw this full time job" if I had such a job, it's letting me scrape by, and giving the current growth level it's looking very promising.
Let's call it "Screw Monster.com, I don't want (have) to work for anyone else now":)
I agree, they should try some Windows games to Linux. I prefer Linux, but being a gamer, I have issues of compatibility.
There are a few Linux ports of various games available. Loki specialized in this, and (IIRC) they are now out of business...
The problem is that the Shareware model doesn't generally work on Linux. There are some notable examples (NcFTPd, http-analyze) but in most cases, Linux users don't like to pay for software. It sounds like an over-generalization, but it's true. Many Linux users are Linux users because they are sick of paying for software. Others simply can't afford to do so. Some have the idea that software should be free, everything must be GPL, etc...
Plus, the target market is very small. Not that many people have Linux on the desktop. Those who do, have various kernel versions, various audio/video drivers, different desktop environments, etc -- making it difficult to support the few users you may actually get.
Plus, I have never successfully run a 3D game under Linux. I've tried many times to get UT to run, on a few different systems. It runs, but very, very slowly (though psdoom worked nicely in a small window, and was loads of fun:)
I prefer Linux too, for many tasks, but I also write Shareware. I doubt a Linux port would be worth the effort... a Mac port perhaps...
Some try to "lock" down their products and tie registeration keys into the actual hardware used, while on the other hand some people don't worry about it and charge a modest amount for thier work.
I've been in the business for a few years. One thing I've noticed is that Shareware authors tend to follow what the big commercial houses are doing. "Product Activation" and hardware-locking are two examples.
The problem of course is that the big software vendors can afford to piss off their customers. Microsoft makes you phone in, and locks it to a specific set of hardware, and you just deal with it. Joe's Shareware, on the other hand, knows that there are a hundred other similar products to his, and the slightest nag will drive customers away.
I focus on features my customers want, and not on the registration scheme. There's like one day of coding time in the registration system, and I refuse to put any more into it. I know there are cracks floating around, and I know that those using the cracks (mostly Chinese sites right now) have absolutely no intention of ever paying for my software (or likely for *any* software). Not worth my time, and not worth hassling my paying customers.
I have nothing against shareware, I was just wondering how do they compete.
UltraEdit is a Windows-based editor. It is a tad expensive, and I don't personally use it, but I know several people who swear by it.
The key to competing is to offer something the free alternatives don't have. Likewise, offering a much lower price than the big commercial vendors (not such an issue in the case of text editors).
Generally Shareware products can offer around 90% of the features of similar commercial products, with 5% to 10% the cost. Freeware in many cases offers 70% to 80% of the features, and (since it's usually done in spare time as a hobby) slow development and little support.
There are of course plenty of cases where freeware is more than good enough. Even then (thinking web browsers), there's still room in the market for a unique, non-free offering (Opera). You just have to offer users something they can't get elsewhere for less (or free), and you've got a marketable product.
Disclaimer: above statistics were made up on the spot:)
Agreed, despite the best efforts of software crackers to try and kill it.
I'm a shareware author myself, and I gave up on crackers years ago. You come to a point where you realize, no matter what you do, you'll get cracked one way or another. You also come to the realisation that crackers are *never* going to pay for software.
Getting too crazy with registration schemes just makes it harder for the paying customers, and only marginally more difficult for crackers; once someone cracks it, none of that matters any more, yet you're still inconveniencing the paying customers.
So I try to encourage others to stick to simple registration schemes (no "phoning home" or hardware locking) and worry about satisfying their paying customers.
And shareware is not dead. As long as you're not the "I will never pay for software" type, Shareware offers less expensive choices to commercial offerings, with the ability to fully try it out before making a decision. Many times a shareware app will cost 20x less than a similar commercial product, while offering 90% of the features, (usually) faster/more personal support, faster response to feature requests, etc.
Obviously I'm baised, but the last couple months (except for the last 4 days -- very slow right now) have shown me that the Shareware model still works, and quite well.
... until everyone's head explodes from all the radiation.;)
I know you meant this in humor, but all this basically does is take a standard AC power transformer, and split it into two parts. The "primary" coil is in the charger unit, while the "secondary" coil is in the unit itself. Placing the two cores close to each other will complete the transformer.
I think it's great. If everyone can standardize on the specs, we can have a single charger for many items. Imagine only having to buy one car charger for all (most) of your portable devices.
This would NOT be a good idea for something that is magnetically sensitive, as it would effectively erase floppy/hard disks, cassette tapes, etc...
The "radiation" would be the same that you'd get from any standard "wall wart" plug-in transformer.
...on the contrary my friend, you _do_ have several logs of the event...
Yes, except that when the system will not boot at all (command line, safe mode, etc all result in the auto-reboot) I can't view any of that stuff. Microsoft's solution involved a parallel install of Win2k to be able to fix the existing install. Because of course you need the GUI tools to fix it.
Perhaps it may have been possible to use the "Recovery Console" to obtain some of the crash data -- but why the hell couldn't the blue screen just pause for a second before rebooting?
Additionally, Windows does not have "automatically reboot" enabled by default.
Sorry, but Windows 2000 Professional "Upgrade", purchased 2/17/2000 (day it was released I believe), does in fact enable this by default. Trust me, it's enabled by default.
Enough of the "bah, windows 2000 doesn't do this, nor that" banter.
I didn't say I didn't like Windows 2000 -- the reason I'm using it is because I do like it. Win2k offered a lot of stability and reliability that Windows did not have previously. But there are still things that are just plain stupid about it. Windows will not boot without a video card *and* valid driver for it. If the driver won't initialize -- BSOD. Card not present? Not sure what it would do, but I am sure it won't be useful.
In my opinion, much as I do like Windows (2000 and up), it's a desktop OS, and nothing more. But that's beside the point...
Your going to to mention "Blue Screen" one day and no one will know what you are talking about. I have not seen one for over a year now...
I would have said the same thing the other day, but I recently received a blue screen in Win2k by plugging an analog monitor into my laptop. After that the machine wouldn't boot, even with the monitor disconnected. Had to remove the video driver (in safe mode) and reboot. Suddenly everything worked, with both monitors connected...
Note that the blue screen showed on both monitors (laptop built-in and external LCD, nicely anti-aliased, too).
Win2k defaults to "Automatically Reboot" in the event of a blue screen, which costed me a reinstall once over a problem that to this day I don't know what caused. I really, really wish it would wait 5 seconds and *then* reboot, so you can at least read the error. Safe mode wouldn't boot, and I just saw a flash of blue before it rebooted (when I discovered the problem, I awoke to my machine in a constant reboot cycle).
All in all, I will agree, Windows has come a long way in stability. I'm still using 2000, and have no plans (no need) to "upgrade", at least until I retire my current machines. But you *must* disable "Automatically Reboot", else you get stuck with no log, no error message, and an ever-rebooting Windows box...
True that, if win2k goes down on me it just reboots.
Actually you're getting a blue screen, but Win2k defaults to "Reboot Automatically" in the event of a blue screen error. This is bad, in my opinion; I lost a system (had to reinstall) over a problem I never did figure out.
Microsoft's solution? Install another copy of Win2k to a different partition or folder, hack the old Win2k registry to disable the auto-reboot feature. I just reinstalled...
Ever since, that's the first thing I do: disable auto-reboot (System Properties -> Advanced -> Startup and Recovery).
I did recently have a blue screen. I plugged into my laptop, of all things, a monitor. An analog monitor. Got a blue screen. I had to boot safe mode, uninstall the video driver, and it just fixed itself (how the hell do you run a headless Windows server if it won't even boot without a video driver?)
I wasn't saying to write a driver yourself. My point was that someone probably has written/will write a driver for it. My comparison with Windows was that, if you have old or unsupported hardware, the chances that some hacker has hacked up a working driver for the latest Windows release is slim.
In Linux, you can find drivers for just about anything. New stuff tends to take time, but the hardware company had lots of time in advance to work on drivers (likely drivers were written while the hardware was being *designed*). We get it after the fact, and often have to reverse-engineer it, depending on how cooperative the hardware company is.
In the case of ACPI, someone has already written perfectly fine support for it. But it is not being included in the kernel. It cannot be put into a module like drivers for other devices, but a kernel patch.
Which proves my point: someone has already done it. Granted, it's a kernel patch and not a module, but with most new hardware that won't be the case.
Not wanting to add it to the current stable kernel is perfectly sensible. I don't know how much of the kernel the patch affects, but likely it wasn't accepted because it touches too much. I certainly don't want another VM fiasco... a stable kernel is far more important than being able to suspend. I don't want my servers to become potentially unstable so someone can suspend their laptop to disk...
Slashdot Mirror
Well it's ok to have the same password for everything.
I have to disagree. At *minimum* you should have two passwords, one that you use for throw-away junk (random web site registrations, etc) and one for stuff that matters (banking, etc). Many web sites store passwords in plain-text, and you never know who is running it or has access to that.
So you leave a message on some forum one day, bitching about your online banking's lack of Mozilla support. The "admin" of that forum decides to try your forum password in at said bank, and successfully logs into your account.
I've seen it happen.
Most people (except for the real geeks, maybe) follow a pattern in their passwords. If you know the pattern, it makes the job easier.
This is true. I'd say more people follow a pattern rather than use the same exact password, if only because everything you log in to has different password requirements. Some want 8 characters, others require at least one letter and one digit. Some make you change it periodically, so they may just increment a number. But essentially it's the same password, or really easy to find the pattern and try alternatives.
So if the techie needs your password, change it to "abc123" and give him that. When he's done, change it back to the original.
On a Unix system, there's no reason they would ever need your password. They can change it, saving the original hash, and replace the hash when they're done. On Windows, the rules no longer apply, and your solution would probably be the best...
It's really not that hard. I've found Best Buy to be good about issuing rebates, if not a little slow about it. I picked up a 52x CDRW for $25 after rebates, and a stick of 128 MB PC_133 for $7.99.
I just set aside 10 minutes, filled out all the information, and mailed the rebate forms out. $100, that I used to justify buying more computer stuff off of eBay.
I'll admit, I always used to let rebates slip, but I've made it a point recently to keep the receipts on the kitchen table until I send them in. It really does only take ten minutes. People like you (which I used to be, and I know there are many others) allow me to get great prices on things. Best Buy always has great rebates going on in any given week - I almost never buy computer components there unless there's a good price -- which inevitably involves a rebate or two.
They often lose the privacy the rest of us have or the right to vote.
Not true. You can't vote while serving time for a felony conviction. You can vote after that, and you can even exercise your right to vote while in jail awaiting trial (before you are convicted).
Their property is forfeitted, and educational aid is often denied.
The property thing I don't know first hand. I have heard of this happening.
But educational aid denied? Can you give an example of this? I can provide a few examples where a convicted felon received a Pell grant and Stafford loans, even with piss-poor credit history.
Why not cut off their ability to make a living? Hell, make them non-persons, brand an "F" onto their foreheads and leave them to the dogs...
Unfortunately you will find that most people will automatically reject a potential employee based on a prior criminal record. You dare check that "Yes" box on an application, and you won't even be considered in most cases.
Overall we're in agreement, but the right to vote and educational aid issues are simply not true in my experience.
Do they inherit the copyright to the changes? Can they then release your code as their own? Can they use your code in other products?
It's all in the article. I quote:
(italics mine)
In all I see this as a good thing. They can't beat open source, and are testing the waters with their embeded product. This is a good choice, since embeded development would probably benefit most from having the source available.
All I know is I'll quit using Mozilla and will start a port of Konqueror to Winblows if that irritating tab bug [mozilla.org] isn't fixed in 1.4.
/. window and it makes it a major pain to keep trying the URL.
I hate that one too. I frequently middle-click (open in new tab) links from Slashdot, for example. Frequently the link times out. I'd like to be able to switch to that tab and reload, but when I do, the URL isn't there -- it reloads the blank page. Usually by this point I've already moved elsewhere in the
Of course, it's not a major issue, but a minor annoyance. Often I'll be manually piecing together an URL, and need to look at another tab for a second (what was that directory name again?) and -- bam -- I've lost what I'd typed. I'm now in the habit of copying what I had to the clipboard first, but that shouldn't be necessary.
I almost never, ever use MSIE. However, I think the "smoothness" of smooth scrolling depends on your video hardware. On my main system, with an NVidia geForce ti4600 the scrolling is nice. I'd almost say it was better with my old card (Voodoo3).
But of course on my laptop (crappy Trident chip) it's painful to sit through. It seems to block all user input and use 100% CPU for the full one second-per-line it takes to scroll.
It seems like it's just scrolling the page a pixel at a time, and then jumping to the desired position after some time goes by (causing the "jerky" effect some have pointed out). Ideally it should be time-based, moving as many pixels at a time as are necessary to be smooth on whatever hardware is running. I'll have to see how Mozilla handles this, and if it's any better than MSIE's implementation...
In all, when it is actually smooth and fast, I like the feature, but of course not enough to actually make me use MSIE...
Other values of the bit?
:)
I hate to admit, I remember reading that paragraph, but didn't catch that
I liked this bit (emphasis mine):
That item now shows on Wal-Mart as "Not Available at this time".
I just noticed it also says "Only available online". I picked mine up in the store. I wonder if my local Walmart has more, I'm tempted to pick up a second one...
How is it for DVDs? I need to replace my 21" NEC MultiSync...
I don't have a DVD drive, but it does full-screen Divx nicely. Full motion video isn't blurry at all. Games show a little blur, but the refresh rate is generally higher with games than typical 30 fps video...
I would imagine it would do nicely with DVD. I'll have to test that on another PC out of curiosity. Hm, that's another nice thing: having a larger monitor I can easily tote around with me...
I have found that the actual LCD screen can be relatively inexpensive, while the controller is much more expensive.
At what resolution? Think about the fact that, as the screen grows larger, the surface area grows exponentially. So does the probability of defects (very high with LCD displays), and so does the cost.
That's why you'll find small color LCD screens everywhere -- ATMs, gas pumps, portable TVs, etc. Larger ones are much more expensive to manufacture, and that cost is passed on.
I hate to reply to my own comment, but regarding the price similarities between a laptop and a stand-alone LCD. For $1000 you aren't going to get a laptop with a good screen (or a good anything else, really). Not with a wide viewing angle, good resolution resampling, etc...
My Presario cost me $1500 in 2000, and its display is horrible. Resampling is simple pixel-doubling, which is impossible to read. Viewing angle is on the order of 15-degrees (possibly exagerated, but it's pretty bad). Backlight never turns off until it's powered down (no display standby). And of course it's only 13.3 inches.
Compare that to a $650 Samsung a friend bought, also in 2000: 15-inch, decent (better) viewing angle, analog connection, etc. Not to mention the $400 Microtek I mentioned above.
I think if you shop around, and compare feature-for-feature, you'll find that the situation isn't really that bad. Find a laptop with a 15-inch display and good features. Now find that $1000 one you mentioned; there's going to be a lot of differences.
Finally, televisions are a different beast. You need hardware to handle scan-conversions, TV reception, composite/S-video conversions, etc. There's just more to it. Plus, I'd imagine (I haven't looked) that an LCD television would support HDTV or, at least, high-resolution inputs (game consoles, PC, DVD?)
I thought the same thing for quite a while, but then I stumbled on this at my local Walmart. For $400, I got an 18-inch LCD.
It has an analog VGA connector (a good thing for me; most of my PCs lack digital output), a 160-degree viewing angle (I didn't think that was even possible -- 180 would be viewing completely from the side), 1280x1024 native resolution, and does a great job resampling other resolutions. I can't prove it yet, but I am pretty sure it uses subpixel rendering when resizing lower resolutions.
So all the things I didn't like about LCDs a couple years ago -- limited viewing angle, bad resampling, digital-only connector, small size, and of course price -- are solved with this Walmart cheapo.
I'm sure it won't last all that long, but for the price, it's really nice, easy on the eyes, and much sharper than my last monitor (an aging Trinitron).
So, at one month old, mine has convinced me to never go back to a CRT.
Oh, and in games or full-screen video it rocks. You still only get 60 actual refreshes a second, but that's more than enough (and unlike a CRT the light is constant anyway). Fast motion can be a tiny bit blurry, but nothing like my crappy Compaq laptop... and in games, the blur actually looks better in my opinion -- more realistic (or I'm just goofy)...
Where the hell does DRM come into this? The official criteria for Windows Logo Certification has nothing to do with DRM. It involes:
- Obtaining a certificate from Verisign ($400)
- Adhering to certain Windows Standards (noting that MS Office 2000 and Media Player would not pass)
That's it. There are no DRM requirements, just making sure your software a) works with the latest Windows version and follows certain standards (not very strict), and b) is code-signed to ensure it is published exactly the way you released it (signed by you, with your own key).
As I said in this topic earlier, most animals recognize good and respond in kind. As it happens, humans are basically animals. So humans validate good deeds appropriately.
I agree to a point. Some use that argument to show that having any sort of registration/licensing scheme is unnecessary, and that pushes the argument a bit too far (I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not).
I find that most people are honest after a tiny bit of influence. I mean, how many people do you know that paid for WinZip (for home use, not business)? The program works forever without paying, and has one, tiny little nag at startup.
Now, if WinZip disabled itself after 30 days, or had some other limitations, I suspect a lot more end-users would register. They are targetting site-licensing for businesses more than anything, though, which I suspect is why they would rather everyone else use it (and get used to it) for free.
So yeah, most people are honest -- most people won't download a crack or keygen, I believe -- but only with a little bit of pushing.
The lock on my front door doesn't keep out criminals; it keeps the "honest people honest" as they say...
PS as to the market being limited, two things. First, yes, but growing! Second, sure so target where it is in large use. Like servers.
Agreed -- the two examples I gave (NcFTPd and http-analyze) did exactly that. My point was that for desktop software (and games), the market is pretty small. I run Linux on a few systems, and will only run either Linux or FreeBSD on a server. But on the desktop, I have tri-boot on my laptop, mostly for novelty, coding/testing, etc; I rarely use it in a desktop environment, really... as such I would never pay for desktop software for that system... and I know a few others who are the same way with Linux on the desktop: it's there because it's fun to play with, but once they want to do some serious work they're back on the Windows box (or partition)...
So, out of curiosity, HOW well does it work for you? Pizza money? Cool toy money? Computer system money? New Car money? House money? Screw this full time job money?
:)
I was actually forced to do this full-time; my job searching has turned up nothing in the last year or so... I used to do consulting (PHP/MySQL) work, and where 2 years ago I'd get several calls a week, the last year has gotten me nowhere. I even did a week-long stint doing warranty repairs on Gateway PCs...
So in the mean time, between Monster.com searches, I worked on my shareware. Did an update (rewrite) to my DJ software, and finished a new project (sound editor), and now, things are picking up to "pays the rent". Having two products nearly doubled my income, and I can afford to spend most of my time working on shareware (you quickly learn that coding is only about 20% of it; the rest is marketing, advertising, business junk... ugh!)
So, while it's not exactly "Screw this full time job" if I had such a job, it's letting me scrape by, and giving the current growth level it's looking very promising.
Let's call it "Screw Monster.com, I don't want (have) to work for anyone else now"
Well, almost...
I agree, they should try some Windows games to Linux. I prefer Linux, but being a gamer, I have issues of compatibility.
:)
There are a few Linux ports of various games available. Loki specialized in this, and (IIRC) they are now out of business...
The problem is that the Shareware model doesn't generally work on Linux. There are some notable examples (NcFTPd, http-analyze) but in most cases, Linux users don't like to pay for software. It sounds like an over-generalization, but it's true. Many Linux users are Linux users because they are sick of paying for software. Others simply can't afford to do so. Some have the idea that software should be free, everything must be GPL, etc...
Plus, the target market is very small. Not that many people have Linux on the desktop. Those who do, have various kernel versions, various audio/video drivers, different desktop environments, etc -- making it difficult to support the few users you may actually get.
Plus, I have never successfully run a 3D game under Linux. I've tried many times to get UT to run, on a few different systems. It runs, but very, very slowly (though psdoom worked nicely in a small window, and was loads of fun
I prefer Linux too, for many tasks, but I also write Shareware. I doubt a Linux port would be worth the effort... a Mac port perhaps...
Some try to "lock" down their products and tie registeration keys into the actual hardware used, while on the other hand some people don't worry about it and charge a modest amount for thier work.
I've been in the business for a few years. One thing I've noticed is that Shareware authors tend to follow what the big commercial houses are doing. "Product Activation" and hardware-locking are two examples.
The problem of course is that the big software vendors can afford to piss off their customers. Microsoft makes you phone in, and locks it to a specific set of hardware, and you just deal with it. Joe's Shareware, on the other hand, knows that there are a hundred other similar products to his, and the slightest nag will drive customers away.
I focus on features my customers want, and not on the registration scheme. There's like one day of coding time in the registration system, and I refuse to put any more into it. I know there are cracks floating around, and I know that those using the cracks (mostly Chinese sites right now) have absolutely no intention of ever paying for my software (or likely for *any* software). Not worth my time, and not worth hassling my paying customers.
I have nothing against shareware, I was just wondering how do they compete.
:)
UltraEdit is a Windows-based editor. It is a tad expensive, and I don't personally use it, but I know several people who swear by it.
The key to competing is to offer something the free alternatives don't have. Likewise, offering a much lower price than the big commercial vendors (not such an issue in the case of text editors).
Generally Shareware products can offer around 90% of the features of similar commercial products, with 5% to 10% the cost. Freeware in many cases offers 70% to 80% of the features, and (since it's usually done in spare time as a hobby) slow development and little support.
There are of course plenty of cases where freeware is more than good enough. Even then (thinking web browsers), there's still room in the market for a unique, non-free offering (Opera). You just have to offer users something they can't get elsewhere for less (or free), and you've got a marketable product.
Disclaimer: above statistics were made up on the spot
Agreed, despite the best efforts of software crackers to try and kill it.
I'm a shareware author myself, and I gave up on crackers years ago. You come to a point where you realize, no matter what you do, you'll get cracked one way or another. You also come to the realisation that crackers are *never* going to pay for software.
Getting too crazy with registration schemes just makes it harder for the paying customers, and only marginally more difficult for crackers; once someone cracks it, none of that matters any more, yet you're still inconveniencing the paying customers.
So I try to encourage others to stick to simple registration schemes (no "phoning home" or hardware locking) and worry about satisfying their paying customers.
And shareware is not dead. As long as you're not the "I will never pay for software" type, Shareware offers less expensive choices to commercial offerings, with the ability to fully try it out before making a decision. Many times a shareware app will cost 20x less than a similar commercial product, while offering 90% of the features, (usually) faster/more personal support, faster response to feature requests, etc.
Obviously I'm baised, but the last couple months (except for the last 4 days -- very slow right now) have shown me that the Shareware model still works, and quite well.
I know you meant this in humor, but all this basically does is take a standard AC power transformer, and split it into two parts. The "primary" coil is in the charger unit, while the "secondary" coil is in the unit itself. Placing the two cores close to each other will complete the transformer.
I think it's great. If everyone can standardize on the specs, we can have a single charger for many items. Imagine only having to buy one car charger for all (most) of your portable devices.
This would NOT be a good idea for something that is magnetically sensitive, as it would effectively erase floppy/hard disks, cassette tapes, etc...
The "radiation" would be the same that you'd get from any standard "wall wart" plug-in transformer.
...on the contrary my friend, you _do_ have several logs of the event...
Yes, except that when the system will not boot at all (command line, safe mode, etc all result in the auto-reboot) I can't view any of that stuff. Microsoft's solution involved a parallel install of Win2k to be able to fix the existing install. Because of course you need the GUI tools to fix it.
Perhaps it may have been possible to use the "Recovery Console" to obtain some of the crash data -- but why the hell couldn't the blue screen just pause for a second before rebooting?
Additionally, Windows does not have "automatically reboot" enabled by default.
Sorry, but Windows 2000 Professional "Upgrade", purchased 2/17/2000 (day it was released I believe), does in fact enable this by default. Trust me, it's enabled by default.
Enough of the "bah, windows 2000 doesn't do this, nor that" banter.
I didn't say I didn't like Windows 2000 -- the reason I'm using it is because I do like it. Win2k offered a lot of stability and reliability that Windows did not have previously. But there are still things that are just plain stupid about it. Windows will not boot without a video card *and* valid driver for it. If the driver won't initialize -- BSOD. Card not present? Not sure what it would do, but I am sure it won't be useful.
In my opinion, much as I do like Windows (2000 and up), it's a desktop OS, and nothing more. But that's beside the point...
Your going to to mention "Blue Screen" one day and no one will know what you are talking about. I have not seen one for over a year now...
I would have said the same thing the other day, but I recently received a blue screen in Win2k by plugging an analog monitor into my laptop. After that the machine wouldn't boot, even with the monitor disconnected. Had to remove the video driver (in safe mode) and reboot. Suddenly everything worked, with both monitors connected...
Note that the blue screen showed on both monitors (laptop built-in and external LCD, nicely anti-aliased, too).
Win2k defaults to "Automatically Reboot" in the event of a blue screen, which costed me a reinstall once over a problem that to this day I don't know what caused. I really, really wish it would wait 5 seconds and *then* reboot, so you can at least read the error. Safe mode wouldn't boot, and I just saw a flash of blue before it rebooted (when I discovered the problem, I awoke to my machine in a constant reboot cycle).
All in all, I will agree, Windows has come a long way in stability. I'm still using 2000, and have no plans (no need) to "upgrade", at least until I retire my current machines. But you *must* disable "Automatically Reboot", else you get stuck with no log, no error message, and an ever-rebooting Windows box...
True that, if win2k goes down on me it just reboots.
Actually you're getting a blue screen, but Win2k defaults to "Reboot Automatically" in the event of a blue screen error. This is bad, in my opinion; I lost a system (had to reinstall) over a problem I never did figure out.
Microsoft's solution? Install another copy of Win2k to a different partition or folder, hack the old Win2k registry to disable the auto-reboot feature. I just reinstalled...
Ever since, that's the first thing I do: disable auto-reboot (System Properties -> Advanced -> Startup and Recovery).
I did recently have a blue screen. I plugged into my laptop, of all things, a monitor. An analog monitor. Got a blue screen. I had to boot safe mode, uninstall the video driver, and it just fixed itself (how the hell do you run a headless Windows server if it won't even boot without a video driver?)
Just write a driver yourself?
I wasn't saying to write a driver yourself. My point was that someone probably has written/will write a driver for it. My comparison with Windows was that, if you have old or unsupported hardware, the chances that some hacker has hacked up a working driver for the latest Windows release is slim.
In Linux, you can find drivers for just about anything. New stuff tends to take time, but the hardware company had lots of time in advance to work on drivers (likely drivers were written while the hardware was being *designed*). We get it after the fact, and often have to reverse-engineer it, depending on how cooperative the hardware company is.
In the case of ACPI, someone has already written perfectly fine support for it. But it is not being included in the kernel. It cannot be put into a module like drivers for other devices, but a kernel patch.
Which proves my point: someone has already done it. Granted, it's a kernel patch and not a module, but with most new hardware that won't be the case.
Not wanting to add it to the current stable kernel is perfectly sensible. I don't know how much of the kernel the patch affects, but likely it wasn't accepted because it touches too much. I certainly don't want another VM fiasco... a stable kernel is far more important than being able to suspend. I don't want my servers to become potentially unstable so someone can suspend their laptop to disk...