I guess that means I'll never get that remake of Atic Atac I'd hoped for:)
Seriously... good for those guys. They produced some of my favorite games of all times (Lunar Jetman, Jetpac, Atic Atac, Sabrewulf and so on) and they deserve to retire and take it easy. Rare hasn't been Ultimate in a LOOOOONG time, and their games in the last few years have been mere shadows of really good games. About time guys.. go... relax... enjoy.
I hadn't even heard about this game until today. Thanks again, Jack T for bringing it to my attention!!!
No, seriously... does anyone else here think Jack Thompson is actually a shill for Rockstar Games and is actually part of the PR marketing campaign??? Until he arrived, I'd heard almost nothing about Grand Theft Auto, but then again I'm not much of a gamer. Having said that, once I'd heard about it through Jack T I figured I should check it out. I borrowed a friend's copy of Vice City and loved it... then bought a copy... then bought San Andreas... you're seeing a pattern here? Hell, I would've bought Bully except that I haven't had time to sit down and play it so I didn't bother buying it yet. Note the "yet" in there.
Depends who you ask. VMware themselves swear blind that the VMware itself runs in its own memory space using Linux only as a bootstrap in much the same way as Netware used DOS as a bootstrap. Whether or not you subscribe to that opinion... well that's another matter:)
I know this is either never going to be seen, but you've obviously never worked in a large company that runs their apps on Windows servers. There the norm is to run one-app-per-box which has led to a massive proliferation of physical servers across the average datacenter. I know, I work in one such environment and have worked in several others over the years.
Even in UNIX this makes some sense; I run three UNIX boxes at home. One of them is a physical box that acts as my primary file / print / SQL server while two virtual machines provide me my "front-end" services... i.e. those that are publicly accessible through the Internet. One is my email filter (spam and AV) as well as my secure-shell server (on a custom port). The other acts as my web server. This gives me a "sandbox" environment so that in the event either of these boxes is compromised I can trash and rebuild them easily. Even better; since I back up the image files once a week to tape I can just restore the most recent image and be back up and running in minutes instead of hours. Obviously, they share a different security mechanism and standards to the main box they're actually running on.
I can also transfer these two VM's to new hardware without having to recompile the kernel since the virtual hardware is a known quantity. That simplifies my life and would even assist with a fresh rollout where rather than waiting for a new kernel to compile I can copy the kernel and modules from one of the running VM's. Also, if I want to upgrade the kernel I do the compile once, install on all the VMs and reboot them. Saves hassle.
But seriously, in Windows world this has almost become a requirement. It's the norm in most Corporate datacenters today to run servers at 2-8% utilization because they can only run one app at a time. The only exception to this seems to be SQL servers but even then since many of them are just really used as sequential data stores even they don't get utilized much except for memory. I'm working a massive project right now at a company to implement VMWare ESX on blade technologies primarily as a way to get rid of the nasty footprint of hardware that's in place today. Literally, there are massive datacenters around the world right now that are filled with expensive space heaters because the stability problems of Windows running multiple applications have taught people the lesson to run one application per server. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how it is. That's why VMware became so big so quickly; because finally we can get some of the advantages of mainframes (application segmentation within a single piece of hardware) relatively cheaply, on commodity hardware and still maintain the applications that the customers want.
The nice thing is, the "suits" who don't know any better don't really click that their precious Windows apps are running on a UNIX platform. They just think that they have a server, the usually don't really care about the hardware and they can't tell the difference. We have many people, even knowledgeable developers who don't realize their Windows machine is just one among 12 running on a dual, dual-core Opteron box with loads of RAM and a connection to our SAN. We found 12-15 to be ESX's sweet-spot for performance with average use servers in our testing... pick your own arbitrary number if you like... I've run 30 VMs on a single box before.
And also, single point of failure is not necessarily a failing of virtualization. A well-designed environment will provide redundancy as ours does. So for example, for each of our host systems we have a second system that's designated as a failover secondary. Now, this secondary server is also a primary server for several other VMs. In the event of a single server failure, our virtual machines will then boot on the secondary host leaving us a downtime of only a minute or so booting from a nice fast SAN volume. Obviously, since all secondary hosts are also primary hosts your only real impact will be a drop in performance on the other VMs that a
> I can't comment on ACPI, other than to state that I have never used a computer for any length of time, running any OS, that did power management properly. That includes Linux (RHEL3 and older), Windows (XP and earlier), or Solaris (10, etc.)
You obviously haven't used OSX...
AAAGGGHHH!!! Sorry officer, I couldn't control myself!!!
Seriously, I've worked with just about every OS out there, and I think only OSX does power management right. Then again, complete control of the platform has a LOT to do with it so I'm not blaming Solaris or Linux (or Windows, or BSD, or...) for that.
My personal opinion on the Apple without Jobs thing is that someone would step up and replace Jobs. Although Apple does seem like a cult of personality at times, it's actually managed to grow far beyond that. Yes, Jobs is a figurehead and he definitely provides much of the vision that drives Apple, but there are enough people in top positions at Apple these days that have similar or identical visions to Jobs that any one of them could take over and there'd be almost no impact to Apple's future direction.
You'll also never see a lowest-common-denominator Apple OS targeted at the "unwashed masses"; it's not the target of Apple as a whole. They're actually quite happy to give that market to Microsoft because it's a support nightmare. Apple wants the savvy user, or the artistic user and they've created a great platform for them. Yes, they've started targeting the home in the last few years with the Mini, but even when they released the "$500 Mac" they knew that Dell et al would undercut them.
I am a little biased; I think OSX desktop is the best and most useable out there right now bar none despite its flaws (yes, it has a few), and Apple hardware scream out "QUALITY". But not everyone wants a platform. They want to have a company that will piece together commodity hardware bought in massive bulk and stick on an operating system that will support their applications. Much of the reason that those applications are all Windows today in my opinion is mostly because Apple made a big mistake getting rid of Jobs in the 80's and spent more than a decade floundering.
Spoken like a true American who doesn't live in a city that relies on public transport:)
Seriously, I live in the midwest these days so public transport for me is almost non-existent. But god, I would have KILLED for a video iPod when i lived in London and rode the tube every day. Crammed into a rolling tube like sardines is bad enough, but is made particularly bad when someone near you has chronic BO. Believe me, any escape for the 30-45 minutes that'll take your mind out of that tube car is good in my book. I had a portable CD player back then, but believe me there were times I wished I could whip out a small compact device and watch some video.
I admit though, today the video iPod is a much harder sell for me. I have a Nano because it's small, light, simple and robust. I don't use it all the time, but when I do it's nice to have around. However, I tend to use it only a few places: In my car (iPod dock in my dash), at the gym or sometimes at my desk at work (deep in a coding session I like classical music). None of these places would fit the video iPod... but that's why Apple sell more than one model of iPod.
Having said that too, I must admit I find the current generation of video iPod sexy, but it's a hard sell for me because the only places I could see using it would be (a) on a plane (so long as I'm not the pilot!:) ) or (b) at a coffee shop. The former I don't do so much these days, and the latter... well for some reason I find it much more relaxing to sit at a coffee shop with a book or... like... talk to the other patrons.
I would tend to agree with you here. I was also part of "The Scene" way back when. The community was built up around people who tended to take what the manufacturers said their hardware could and could not do, and attempt to prove them wrong. Some of the slickest bits of code I ever saw in my life were in 68000 on the Amiga and Atari ST. The former had the advantage of nice hardware, but I saw some awesome code on the latter trying to overcome its limitations and making it more like the Amiga in software. Truly wonderful times.
That community doesn't have a chance in the modern computing world. The code these days is too obfuscated from the hardware to really push it in the same way that you can with assembly. On the other hand though it's increasingly difficult to code anything impressive because of the wide arrange of hardware that's out there. You just can't write a demo or intro that'll run on everyone's machine without going through an API layer (operating system), and then you just can't push the hardware like you want to.
This is why when I grew up I got involved a lot with embedded systems. While you don't have the in-built audience that you got with "the scene", embedded shops are screaming out for talented coders who can whip out awesomely efficient code on a known hardware platform. Although the audience is smaller, you will get a bunch of embedded geeks looking at your code and saying "Cool!" when you've done something truly amazing within the limits of the hardware. Then you get to see your code in the marketplace making stuff really work... or in the ultimate example launched into space and doing unexpected but wonderful things on another planet. Now there's a reward that the scene couldn't match:D
Ever heard of security? There are a number of areas in which I've worked where wireless AND wired networking are banned between two workstations in the area. The reason wireless is banned is obvious (snooping). The wired network is banned because there's no way to adequately secure the information on those workstations from potential attack. If there's a network, there's an attack vector. As a result, these workstations require the use of a secured USB stick (used to be floppies, but they are moving with the times) that can transfer the data back and forth. Oh, and the stick is designed such that you can't remove it from the room without triggering an alarm using a similar system to that used in electronic stores.
Just because you can't perceive a system such as that in MR in your own experience, does not mean it doesn't make sense. It depends how sensitive your data is, how open to attack and how much you value the security of your machines and data. As it stands, the workstations I referenced have a total of one physical connection; the power supply. Everything else is integrated and processing is done on the local machines. It's never offloaded to remote machines as the fear is that the sensitive data could be intercepted via any other transport method than a physical USB stick. The only reason they don't use an Ethernet cable strung across the floor is that (a) it's unsightly and (b) it's dangerous. If it were out of sight, technically the people working with that data would have to presume the data was in some way flawed because as soon as something's out of sight there's an opportunity for the data to be intercepted or altered. Yes, these systems really exist. The systems being used by the officers in MR were actually quite a decent representation of how you would transfer that secure data.
Electrically speaking, that's impossible. The way the LED is wired up it isn't software controlled; it's hardware. If there's a current to the camera, there's a current to the LED.
OK... it isn't big, but it IS bright. I mean distractingly so... it just looks big when it's on:)
And you're going to miss the honking great green "in use" light? If you can't see that while looking at the screen, I'd have your eyes checked. Mine on my Macbook Pro is actually quite distracting when it's on. Yes, I use it for IM occasionally.
I re-read my post three times, and still fail to see where I was bashing OS's other than OSX. Yeah, I know some people are particularly sensitive about their choice of OS, but where on Earth did you get an idea that I was bashing anything? I was merely commenting on the GP and responding to their comments.
FYI, I use Linux as a server at home because it does what I need it to. I use OSX on my laptop because in that environment it does what I need it to. I run Windows on my laptop occasionally to play games when I feel like it, because it's good at that. My wife's laptop runs Windows because it does what she needs it to. My kids laptop runs Windows because it does what they need it to.
At work I use Windows because there it does what we need it to as a company. We also run Linux, Solaris and AS/400 where it makes sense or where the applications require it. I have my hands in all of these platforms every day, and you know what? I like it.
I am not as you seem to believe an OSX fanboy, in fact I'm as platform agnostic as you could probably ever find. I use what best fits my needs in a particular area. My laptop runs OSX because in my opinion it's the best consumer-grade totally integrated UNIX workstation laptop on the market today bar none. And no, a Linux laptop doesn't count. And no, that's not a bash on Linux either, it's simply that no-one provides a platform to the consumer today that is totally integrated except Apple. Linux is a third-party OS compiled for the hardware, or more likely a single distribution compiled for multiple hardware platforms (lowest common denominator) installed on that system. OSX is integrated with the hardware, it's designed for the hardware and if I need support on the platform I have one phone number to call. Last time I had a problem with Windows on a laptop I had both Dell and Microsoft pointing fingers at each other... don't even get me started on Linux laptops. Having said that, upstairs I also have a laptop that has Gentoo installed because that's as close to an integrated system as I got before I bought my Mac, and it worked fantastically well for a long time but supporting it as a platform was a lot of work. Maybe it's just because I'm getting older, or maybe it's because my real life takes up so much of my time but I want a platform that functions out of the box and provides me a single, predictable source for support. No, Google does not count.
And FYI, people who want a UNIX workstation are not necessarily developers. I like a UNIX workstation because it gives me flexibility I need when doing the jobs I need to do with a workstation. I work in systems support, and have to support multiple operating systems and application platforms... UNIX provides me the tools I need to do so easily. OSX provides me all those tools... out of the box no less. Windows doesn't. Linux does... but see my earlier comment about the platform. And my comment about Fink... yeah, granted it's not perfect... but if what you want is an easy way to install and uninstall the GNU tools that you want to use that aren't already installed, Fink is a great way to do it without having to go hunting for dependencies.
I use Fink to manage my X11 apps primarily, including running and XFCE bar on the Left side of my screen with links to rdesktop and associated GUI (for managing Windows boxes), gnome-terminal (because quite frankly OSX's term program isn't that good), and xmms (because when I'm working late sometimes I want to listen to music that I don't want inserted automatically into my iTunes library). I use Fink to manage those dependencies... and you know what? It does a damned good job. A weekly launch of gnome-terminal, followed by a "fink selfupdate; fink update-all" then leave anything to compile while I continue working keeps my system clean.
As for your comments about OSX being a toy; who's bashing other OS's now? OK, so it doesn't fulfill specific needs you have. Does that necessarily make it the wrong operating system for everyone? As I said above it does precisely
Well, I've commented on a few comments, but let me finally really comment on the article itself.
I can sum it up relatively quickly: The comments about Finder are pretty valid. Even as a Mac user I find Finder a little clunky and not perfect. Many of the comments I've seen online tend to echo this tendency, and there's a wide-ranging opinion that Finder should be replaced.
The rest of these? Well, it's not so much "15 things wrong with OSX" as a list of "15 things to make OSX more like Windows". Sorry, if you're not willing to learn then stick with what you know... you'll be happier in the long run. Someone who goes to a new OS and is not willing to learn the ways in which the OS is different than their previous OS of choice is asking for trouble, pain and heartache.
It may sound snotty... but don't minimize. I almost never minimize any of my windows, and I have a number open at once. If I want to focus on a window, I bring it to the front. If I want to switch, I have Expose bound to my middle mouse button (I usually use an external mouse), and I just two clicks and I'm in the app I want. I have multiple windows to work in an app? Well, I position them so I can see them... or there's always right-click on the dock... or there's the "Window" menu at the top of the screen. Take your pick. Most of my apps though are either relatively single-tasking (mail, iTunes), or tabbed (browsers). As a result, I rarely have more than one app window open. The only exception that is X11, but then I tend to just have a couple of tiled terminals open at a time.
Any OS needs to be learned... you need to learn the best way of doing things in every OS. You didn't magically appear on a Windows desktop and immediately know what to do... you had to learn to work around its way of window management. OSX is not Windows.
I do concede that point, but OSX is designed to have programs open all the time. I'd rather have that date in my dock than my desktop cluttered with information I only occasionally refer to. I launch iCal at logon, so I never have to worry about launching it... and I close the window but the program's still there updating the dock. That's another reason I like the way OSX does things. With 2Gb of RAM, plenty of HD space and a dual-core CPU there's no reason to terminate apps unless you really have to.
Oh, and you can drag your Applications folder down to the dock next to the trash can... then you can right click that folder and get your apps in an heirarchical menu sort of like Windows. No, it doesn't do it by default, but is that wrong?
And your average user is going to use locate... when? When they launch that command prompt that most OSX users don't even know exists? Sorry, doesn't fly. In the GUI you have Spotlight... that's essentially doing the same job for average Joe User.
Oh, so YOU want locate? Well, since you obviously know it exists and what it does you must be a power user... therefore you should either know how to enable the database maintenance or put a little effort into a two minute Google search to find the answer.
Your objections don't stand up. Remember, OSX is made for the average user... if you want your power tools that'll get you UNIX functionality you need to put in a little more work. However, that amount of work is still significantly less than your average UNIX requires to be user-friendly.
Oh, and in response to the GGP, you've obviously never used an flavor of UNIX other than Linux. Linux is NOT UNIX despite what some might want to tell you. It's inspired by UNIX but doesn't follow many of the forms that became common in true UNIX platforms. OSX is closer to BSD than Linux is, and as such I'm quite comfy in that environment having cut my teeth on NetBSD, FreeBSD and AT&T UNIX (yes, the real deal). Just because nothing is where you expect it coming from a hobbyist UNIX platform, doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. In fact, OSX has more in common with most commercial UNIX's (Unices?) than Linux will ever have. As a result, I think it's a better UNIX.
Just as an aside, is it wrong for Apple to make X11 an optional install that runs after the main GUI? No, because that's what OSX does. The average user doesn't need or want X11... and if you want or need X11 you're a power user almost by default. As such, you should be comfortable with installing it. If you really want to make OSX more Linux-like, download Fink and start installing some more GPL tools... I am a power user, and I'm glad I put in the extra work to learn OSX properly. I've used OS/2, Windows (since 2.0 and up to and including Vista), Mac (from the original MacOS to OSX), GEM, Linux, UNIX (various), AmigaOS, OS/400, S/36, and quite a number of embedded and RTOS's. I have to say that for me, OSX fits the bill. It does everything I want it to, very little that I don't. It's not perfect, but no OS has ever been perfect. I use it because it just works... because I can get my work done. I can tinker with the internals if I want to, but I rarely have to.
And by the way, app bundles are the bomb. Sure, they use a little more disk space... but disk space is cheap. Think of your applications as a folder (which they literally are in the UNIX filesystem) that contain all of the stuff you need to run the app including configs in some apps. Right click on an app and Show Package Contents sometime... it's quite educational. And download the dev packages and learn something about the OS. Even if you have no intention of developing software, the development kit is incredibly deep and will teach you more about the OS than you ever thought possible.
Well, there's a date on my desktop... I have my iCal in my dock, and I launch it on logon because I use it quite a bit. When the program's active, the icon displays the date. Where's the problem?
Incorrect... sort of. While Microsoft doesn't produce a sync client, they do open up the API's for the PocketPC sync so third-party developers can do it. I'm using "Missing Sync", which integrates lovely with iCal and Address Book, and allows me to move my phone (MPx220) back and forth between that and my work Windows laptop (Outlook, ActiveSync).
Saying that, I agree with your comments about the Apple Phone; they'd be fools to force a market lock-in. There are plenty of Windows users who want nicely integrated stuff like the Mac but for whatever reason chose Windows (gamers, anyone?). I know that my kids would be running an iMac right now if it weren't for the fact that the educational games they play aren't available for Mac.
Actually, though your mileage may vary I think the Fujitsu problem is really a problem of Fujitsu. Most notebook manufacturers will provide you parts with the caveat that if you're not out of warranty already you will be after you install your parts. In my life I've gotten replacement parts easily from Dell and Apple both. HP used to be great, but given all the reorgs lately I don't know what the hell's going on over there any more. IBM I found to be a pain to deal with, but selling you parts is not against their policy so they WILL do it grudgingly if you just tell them you're taking full responsibility for the laptop.
Basically, I think your problem is actually a problem with a single manufacturer. Most manufacturers tend to be pretty good about it.
Having said that, despite having replaced small fiddly parts in Powerbooks in the past, when I got my Macbook Pro recently I bought the extended warranty with it so I wouldn't have to worry about it for another 3 years:)
Actually, this review is in the Chicago Sun Times; it's targeted at the average Joe Blow consumer, not the technical people. As a result, the style makes a lot of sense. The style is conversational, to try to get people to read it. It's also short and not very in-depth. Yes, you're right it focuses on all the bad aspects of the player with no room for the good. Well, that's how people think and how people talk in social circumstances. More often than not, people WANT to hear about the bad from a new MP3 player rather than the good; it gives them a reasonable expectation of their own experiences with the device. I know that if I buy a consumer level device and have a bad experience with it, I want to tell my friends about the bad and the good takes a serious back seat to the bad experiences I had. That's so I can try to help my peers and friends avoid the same pain I went through.
Honestly, if you can't even install the software without hitting support.microsoft.com then that's going to set a precedent among the average user. The sound quality and interface become secondary if you can't even get music onto the player without serious hassle. This reviewer just gave his opinion and his bad experiences with the software and hardware overshadowed everything else. In fact, it was some time before he could even get it to work! I agree with his point, on Christmas day the last thing I'd want to deal with is my 9 year old daughter bugging me constantly wondering why she can't use her new Zune. Of course, I don't think I'm going to spend that on her, but I see his point.
And the comparison to Apple? Well, the average consumer knows Apple, knows iPods... and refers to every MP3 player as an iPod. I've seen them in Best Buy so the comparison is valid. Plus the comparison to the Toshiba? Well, I don't know if you've taken a close look, but the Zune *is* a Toshiba device. It's an evolutionary advance on a player that Toshiba already sells with a new button interface and wireless. So although it's a bit of a stretch, that's a valid comparison too.
Yes, I've played with a Zune (though not the software I'll admit). I was underwhelmed. It seemed a little kludgy to me to get where I wanted in the interface (though I'll admit I am an iPod owner and therefore used to that interface), and the rubber coating reminded me of a rather disturbing green/brown sex toy. That's my personal opinion, and not to be taken as gospel, though!
Since when did we start calling "grit", "nanoparticles"? This is just silver dust being put in cleansers... so the particles are small? So what? Is this the latest "cool fad"?
I suppose my dog no longer leaves puppy bombs in the back yard... they're just massive piles of millions of "nanopoop".
Honestly, what I'm seeing more and more is that the "beige box" is dying because we've reached the point of diminishing returns with hardware upgrades. I used to be a serious hardware hacker, upgrading my hardware after only a couple of months of use. Yeah, that upgrade cycle still exists for video cards at the moment, but even then I am beginning to see huge investments for very little actual return as we're reaching the point where the human eye can no longer distinguish the difference. Essentially, there's fewer reasons to buy a "beige box" any more because 99% of what you want to do any more can be accomplished by a reasonable off-the-shelf machine.
Another factor is that the OTS machine actually costs a lot less than it used to. Sure, I'd be the last person to buy your low-end Dell machine because... well... they're crap. But for 75% of the populous they're usually just good enough to get the job done... and do it cheaply and effectively. Why buy a "beige box" from a no-namer or the kid down the street that will probably cost more because of economies of scale, even if they cut corners all over the place. Hell, the last Dell a friend of mine bought cost less than the comparable components I could buy from NewEgg... in fact I think as I recall the motherboard, CPU and HD came to the same price, excluding the case, memory, power supply etc. etc.
There's also been a problem with hardware in that without a "secret decoder ring" half of the product descriptions mean nothing. The Pentium 4 for all its warts was pretty simple; it was a PIV at xGhz. Even then though the problem came in trying to match hardware when building a beige box; not a trivial proposition for most. The last computer I built was an Athlon, but even then the smorgasbord of different memory types and power supply styles just became a little overwhelming... and I do systems for a living!
So we're down to the point that people prefer to buy OTS machines because all the components are pretty assured to work together when you get it home and unbox it. They're cheap, they're disposable... so yes we've come down to the point that they're consumer electronics devices because unless you're a serious gamer or hobbyist then you're not interested in customizing your components. For a large percentage of the computer-buying population, OTS is good enough, and if it's not then they'll replace it in two years. I am not rich, I don't make a huge income... but a $350 expense is almost a throwaway in this country (the US). OK, I'm not going to hand some bum on the street $350, but I can justify buying an OTS machine for my kids for $350 that does everything they need today (basic email, web browsing and a little educational gaming and homework) that may last a year or so before I have to upgrade it or replace it because it's crap. I don't really care.
Another factor to consider is the growth of laptops into truly workhorse machines. I spent $800 upgrading components in my Athlon box mentioned above (Athlon 64), and I didn't even buy a new hard drive or case... just upgraded the motherboard memory and CPU. Sure, I slapped a new video card in there shortly afterward that bought my expenses up to about $1000 give or take... but what did that get me? Well, it was state of the art then, but was rapidly surpassed and is now passe. But my needs changed a little as well, so the box languished as I continued to use my PIII-733 laptop for most of my work (running Linux and OpenOffice) because it did exactly what I really needed my computer for (mostly) with the added advantage of portability (it also had a 7 hour battery life, which I sort of miss these days:) ). That relegated my desktop box to a games machine... a $1000 games machine excluding the investment of my time and the components I transferred from the "old box". Where's the value proposition in that?
My latest computers... three of them in the last 12 months have all been laptops. One Acer for my wife, a Gateway for my kids and an Apple for me. They're less power hu
Wrong, wrong wrong. If you have a job that keeps you awake so long you can't afford a night's sleep then you need to find a new job, not medicate yourself. You need to have a life, you need to work enough to live, not live enough to work. And you need to sleep, and be a social animal. To do less is to cheat yourself. These drugs just make it easier to cheat yourself and for your employer to cheat you. I used to work the 14 and 16 hour days until I made the realization that I was spending my entire life either working, driving or sleeping (what little I got) and I had no time for a social life.
In the last few years as I've gotten older, I've changed a lot. I work 8-10 hour days, I sleep 5-6 hours (I know, still not enough) and spend time with a wife and kids I adore. I wouldn't have been able to have any of that with the job I worked before. Now my job has changed again and I'm being encouraged to work 8 hour days... and told to leave at 9 hours because "... you should spend more time out of this place". That's per my manager!
The upshot? Medicating yourself cheats everyone and benefits no-one except a few more millionths of a penny on the company's stock price (if it's public)... if even that. You need to find your own value and value the life you lead. I may not be rich, but I am happy and have a family that money can't buy.
The post (and article) mentions a claim that they hold a patent to PVR technology; specifically "Computer controlled video system allowing playback during recording" according to their patent filing. The patent does seem to cover the appropriate technology... but what's this I see? A September 2001 date? Hmm... a quick Wikipedia search turns up references to the initial release of Tivo and ReplayTV back in 1999. I think what we have here is a clear case of prior art, so sorry Forgent... I think it's time to pack up your tent.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that means I'll never get that remake of Atic Atac I'd hoped for :)
Seriously... good for those guys. They produced some of my favorite games of all times (Lunar Jetman, Jetpac, Atic Atac, Sabrewulf and so on) and they deserve to retire and take it easy. Rare hasn't been Ultimate in a LOOOOONG time, and their games in the last few years have been mere shadows of really good games. About time guys.. go... relax... enjoy.
I hadn't even heard about this game until today. Thanks again, Jack T for bringing it to my attention!!!
No, seriously... does anyone else here think Jack Thompson is actually a shill for Rockstar Games and is actually part of the PR marketing campaign??? Until he arrived, I'd heard almost nothing about Grand Theft Auto, but then again I'm not much of a gamer. Having said that, once I'd heard about it through Jack T I figured I should check it out. I borrowed a friend's copy of Vice City and loved it... then bought a copy... then bought San Andreas... you're seeing a pattern here? Hell, I would've bought Bully except that I haven't had time to sit down and play it so I didn't bother buying it yet. Note the "yet" in there.
Depends who you ask. VMware themselves swear blind that the VMware itself runs in its own memory space using Linux only as a bootstrap in much the same way as Netware used DOS as a bootstrap. Whether or not you subscribe to that opinion... well that's another matter :)
I know this is either never going to be seen, but you've obviously never worked in a large company that runs their apps on Windows servers. There the norm is to run one-app-per-box which has led to a massive proliferation of physical servers across the average datacenter. I know, I work in one such environment and have worked in several others over the years.
Even in UNIX this makes some sense; I run three UNIX boxes at home. One of them is a physical box that acts as my primary file / print / SQL server while two virtual machines provide me my "front-end" services... i.e. those that are publicly accessible through the Internet. One is my email filter (spam and AV) as well as my secure-shell server (on a custom port). The other acts as my web server. This gives me a "sandbox" environment so that in the event either of these boxes is compromised I can trash and rebuild them easily. Even better; since I back up the image files once a week to tape I can just restore the most recent image and be back up and running in minutes instead of hours. Obviously, they share a different security mechanism and standards to the main box they're actually running on.
I can also transfer these two VM's to new hardware without having to recompile the kernel since the virtual hardware is a known quantity. That simplifies my life and would even assist with a fresh rollout where rather than waiting for a new kernel to compile I can copy the kernel and modules from one of the running VM's. Also, if I want to upgrade the kernel I do the compile once, install on all the VMs and reboot them. Saves hassle.
But seriously, in Windows world this has almost become a requirement. It's the norm in most Corporate datacenters today to run servers at 2-8% utilization because they can only run one app at a time. The only exception to this seems to be SQL servers but even then since many of them are just really used as sequential data stores even they don't get utilized much except for memory. I'm working a massive project right now at a company to implement VMWare ESX on blade technologies primarily as a way to get rid of the nasty footprint of hardware that's in place today. Literally, there are massive datacenters around the world right now that are filled with expensive space heaters because the stability problems of Windows running multiple applications have taught people the lesson to run one application per server. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how it is. That's why VMware became so big so quickly; because finally we can get some of the advantages of mainframes (application segmentation within a single piece of hardware) relatively cheaply, on commodity hardware and still maintain the applications that the customers want.
The nice thing is, the "suits" who don't know any better don't really click that their precious Windows apps are running on a UNIX platform. They just think that they have a server, the usually don't really care about the hardware and they can't tell the difference. We have many people, even knowledgeable developers who don't realize their Windows machine is just one among 12 running on a dual, dual-core Opteron box with loads of RAM and a connection to our SAN. We found 12-15 to be ESX's sweet-spot for performance with average use servers in our testing... pick your own arbitrary number if you like... I've run 30 VMs on a single box before.
And also, single point of failure is not necessarily a failing of virtualization. A well-designed environment will provide redundancy as ours does. So for example, for each of our host systems we have a second system that's designated as a failover secondary. Now, this secondary server is also a primary server for several other VMs. In the event of a single server failure, our virtual machines will then boot on the secondary host leaving us a downtime of only a minute or so booting from a nice fast SAN volume. Obviously, since all secondary hosts are also primary hosts your only real impact will be a drop in performance on the other VMs that a
> I can't comment on ACPI, other than to state that I have never used a computer for any length of time, running any OS, that did power management properly. That includes Linux (RHEL3 and older), Windows (XP and earlier), or Solaris (10, etc.)
You obviously haven't used OSX...
AAAGGGHHH!!! Sorry officer, I couldn't control myself!!!
Seriously, I've worked with just about every OS out there, and I think only OSX does power management right. Then again, complete control of the platform has a LOT to do with it so I'm not blaming Solaris or Linux (or Windows, or BSD, or...) for that.
My personal opinion on the Apple without Jobs thing is that someone would step up and replace Jobs. Although Apple does seem like a cult of personality at times, it's actually managed to grow far beyond that. Yes, Jobs is a figurehead and he definitely provides much of the vision that drives Apple, but there are enough people in top positions at Apple these days that have similar or identical visions to Jobs that any one of them could take over and there'd be almost no impact to Apple's future direction.
You'll also never see a lowest-common-denominator Apple OS targeted at the "unwashed masses"; it's not the target of Apple as a whole. They're actually quite happy to give that market to Microsoft because it's a support nightmare. Apple wants the savvy user, or the artistic user and they've created a great platform for them. Yes, they've started targeting the home in the last few years with the Mini, but even when they released the "$500 Mac" they knew that Dell et al would undercut them.
I am a little biased; I think OSX desktop is the best and most useable out there right now bar none despite its flaws (yes, it has a few), and Apple hardware scream out "QUALITY". But not everyone wants a platform. They want to have a company that will piece together commodity hardware bought in massive bulk and stick on an operating system that will support their applications. Much of the reason that those applications are all Windows today in my opinion is mostly because Apple made a big mistake getting rid of Jobs in the 80's and spent more than a decade floundering.
Spoken like a true American who doesn't live in a city that relies on public transport :)
:) ) or (b) at a coffee shop. The former I don't do so much these days, and the latter... well for some reason I find it much more relaxing to sit at a coffee shop with a book or... like... talk to the other patrons.
Seriously, I live in the midwest these days so public transport for me is almost non-existent. But god, I would have KILLED for a video iPod when i lived in London and rode the tube every day. Crammed into a rolling tube like sardines is bad enough, but is made particularly bad when someone near you has chronic BO. Believe me, any escape for the 30-45 minutes that'll take your mind out of that tube car is good in my book. I had a portable CD player back then, but believe me there were times I wished I could whip out a small compact device and watch some video.
I admit though, today the video iPod is a much harder sell for me. I have a Nano because it's small, light, simple and robust. I don't use it all the time, but when I do it's nice to have around. However, I tend to use it only a few places: In my car (iPod dock in my dash), at the gym or sometimes at my desk at work (deep in a coding session I like classical music). None of these places would fit the video iPod... but that's why Apple sell more than one model of iPod.
Having said that too, I must admit I find the current generation of video iPod sexy, but it's a hard sell for me because the only places I could see using it would be (a) on a plane (so long as I'm not the pilot!
Wow, am I getting nostalgic reading this thread!
:D
I would tend to agree with you here. I was also part of "The Scene" way back when. The community was built up around people who tended to take what the manufacturers said their hardware could and could not do, and attempt to prove them wrong. Some of the slickest bits of code I ever saw in my life were in 68000 on the Amiga and Atari ST. The former had the advantage of nice hardware, but I saw some awesome code on the latter trying to overcome its limitations and making it more like the Amiga in software. Truly wonderful times.
That community doesn't have a chance in the modern computing world. The code these days is too obfuscated from the hardware to really push it in the same way that you can with assembly. On the other hand though it's increasingly difficult to code anything impressive because of the wide arrange of hardware that's out there. You just can't write a demo or intro that'll run on everyone's machine without going through an API layer (operating system), and then you just can't push the hardware like you want to.
This is why when I grew up I got involved a lot with embedded systems. While you don't have the in-built audience that you got with "the scene", embedded shops are screaming out for talented coders who can whip out awesomely efficient code on a known hardware platform. Although the audience is smaller, you will get a bunch of embedded geeks looking at your code and saying "Cool!" when you've done something truly amazing within the limits of the hardware. Then you get to see your code in the marketplace making stuff really work... or in the ultimate example launched into space and doing unexpected but wonderful things on another planet. Now there's a reward that the scene couldn't match
Ever heard of security? There are a number of areas in which I've worked where wireless AND wired networking are banned between two workstations in the area. The reason wireless is banned is obvious (snooping). The wired network is banned because there's no way to adequately secure the information on those workstations from potential attack. If there's a network, there's an attack vector. As a result, these workstations require the use of a secured USB stick (used to be floppies, but they are moving with the times) that can transfer the data back and forth. Oh, and the stick is designed such that you can't remove it from the room without triggering an alarm using a similar system to that used in electronic stores.
Just because you can't perceive a system such as that in MR in your own experience, does not mean it doesn't make sense. It depends how sensitive your data is, how open to attack and how much you value the security of your machines and data. As it stands, the workstations I referenced have a total of one physical connection; the power supply. Everything else is integrated and processing is done on the local machines. It's never offloaded to remote machines as the fear is that the sensitive data could be intercepted via any other transport method than a physical USB stick. The only reason they don't use an Ethernet cable strung across the floor is that (a) it's unsightly and (b) it's dangerous. If it were out of sight, technically the people working with that data would have to presume the data was in some way flawed because as soon as something's out of sight there's an opportunity for the data to be intercepted or altered. Yes, these systems really exist. The systems being used by the officers in MR were actually quite a decent representation of how you would transfer that secure data.
Electrically speaking, that's impossible. The way the LED is wired up it isn't software controlled; it's hardware. If there's a current to the camera, there's a current to the LED.
:)
OK... it isn't big, but it IS bright. I mean distractingly so... it just looks big when it's on
And you're going to miss the honking great green "in use" light? If you can't see that while looking at the screen, I'd have your eyes checked. Mine on my Macbook Pro is actually quite distracting when it's on. Yes, I use it for IM occasionally.
I re-read my post three times, and still fail to see where I was bashing OS's other than OSX. Yeah, I know some people are particularly sensitive about their choice of OS, but where on Earth did you get an idea that I was bashing anything? I was merely commenting on the GP and responding to their comments.
FYI, I use Linux as a server at home because it does what I need it to. I use OSX on my laptop because in that environment it does what I need it to. I run Windows on my laptop occasionally to play games when I feel like it, because it's good at that. My wife's laptop runs Windows because it does what she needs it to. My kids laptop runs Windows because it does what they need it to.
At work I use Windows because there it does what we need it to as a company. We also run Linux, Solaris and AS/400 where it makes sense or where the applications require it. I have my hands in all of these platforms every day, and you know what? I like it.
I am not as you seem to believe an OSX fanboy, in fact I'm as platform agnostic as you could probably ever find. I use what best fits my needs in a particular area. My laptop runs OSX because in my opinion it's the best consumer-grade totally integrated UNIX workstation laptop on the market today bar none. And no, a Linux laptop doesn't count. And no, that's not a bash on Linux either, it's simply that no-one provides a platform to the consumer today that is totally integrated except Apple. Linux is a third-party OS compiled for the hardware, or more likely a single distribution compiled for multiple hardware platforms (lowest common denominator) installed on that system. OSX is integrated with the hardware, it's designed for the hardware and if I need support on the platform I have one phone number to call. Last time I had a problem with Windows on a laptop I had both Dell and Microsoft pointing fingers at each other... don't even get me started on Linux laptops. Having said that, upstairs I also have a laptop that has Gentoo installed because that's as close to an integrated system as I got before I bought my Mac, and it worked fantastically well for a long time but supporting it as a platform was a lot of work. Maybe it's just because I'm getting older, or maybe it's because my real life takes up so much of my time but I want a platform that functions out of the box and provides me a single, predictable source for support. No, Google does not count.
And FYI, people who want a UNIX workstation are not necessarily developers. I like a UNIX workstation because it gives me flexibility I need when doing the jobs I need to do with a workstation. I work in systems support, and have to support multiple operating systems and application platforms... UNIX provides me the tools I need to do so easily. OSX provides me all those tools... out of the box no less. Windows doesn't. Linux does... but see my earlier comment about the platform. And my comment about Fink... yeah, granted it's not perfect... but if what you want is an easy way to install and uninstall the GNU tools that you want to use that aren't already installed, Fink is a great way to do it without having to go hunting for dependencies.
I use Fink to manage my X11 apps primarily, including running and XFCE bar on the Left side of my screen with links to rdesktop and associated GUI (for managing Windows boxes), gnome-terminal (because quite frankly OSX's term program isn't that good), and xmms (because when I'm working late sometimes I want to listen to music that I don't want inserted automatically into my iTunes library). I use Fink to manage those dependencies... and you know what? It does a damned good job. A weekly launch of gnome-terminal, followed by a "fink selfupdate; fink update-all" then leave anything to compile while I continue working keeps my system clean.
As for your comments about OSX being a toy; who's bashing other OS's now? OK, so it doesn't fulfill specific needs you have. Does that necessarily make it the wrong operating system for everyone? As I said above it does precisely
Well, I've commented on a few comments, but let me finally really comment on the article itself.
I can sum it up relatively quickly: The comments about Finder are pretty valid. Even as a Mac user I find Finder a little clunky and not perfect. Many of the comments I've seen online tend to echo this tendency, and there's a wide-ranging opinion that Finder should be replaced.
The rest of these? Well, it's not so much "15 things wrong with OSX" as a list of "15 things to make OSX more like Windows". Sorry, if you're not willing to learn then stick with what you know... you'll be happier in the long run. Someone who goes to a new OS and is not willing to learn the ways in which the OS is different than their previous OS of choice is asking for trouble, pain and heartache.
It may sound snotty... but don't minimize. I almost never minimize any of my windows, and I have a number open at once. If I want to focus on a window, I bring it to the front. If I want to switch, I have Expose bound to my middle mouse button (I usually use an external mouse), and I just two clicks and I'm in the app I want. I have multiple windows to work in an app? Well, I position them so I can see them... or there's always right-click on the dock... or there's the "Window" menu at the top of the screen. Take your pick. Most of my apps though are either relatively single-tasking (mail, iTunes), or tabbed (browsers). As a result, I rarely have more than one app window open. The only exception that is X11, but then I tend to just have a couple of tiled terminals open at a time.
Any OS needs to be learned... you need to learn the best way of doing things in every OS. You didn't magically appear on a Windows desktop and immediately know what to do... you had to learn to work around its way of window management. OSX is not Windows.
I do concede that point, but OSX is designed to have programs open all the time. I'd rather have that date in my dock than my desktop cluttered with information I only occasionally refer to. I launch iCal at logon, so I never have to worry about launching it... and I close the window but the program's still there updating the dock. That's another reason I like the way OSX does things. With 2Gb of RAM, plenty of HD space and a dual-core CPU there's no reason to terminate apps unless you really have to.
I guess this is sort of a "preference" item.
Oh, and you can drag your Applications folder down to the dock next to the trash can... then you can right click that folder and get your apps in an heirarchical menu sort of like Windows. No, it doesn't do it by default, but is that wrong?
And your average user is going to use locate... when? When they launch that command prompt that most OSX users don't even know exists? Sorry, doesn't fly. In the GUI you have Spotlight... that's essentially doing the same job for average Joe User.
Oh, so YOU want locate? Well, since you obviously know it exists and what it does you must be a power user... therefore you should either know how to enable the database maintenance or put a little effort into a two minute Google search to find the answer.
Your objections don't stand up. Remember, OSX is made for the average user... if you want your power tools that'll get you UNIX functionality you need to put in a little more work. However, that amount of work is still significantly less than your average UNIX requires to be user-friendly.
Oh, and in response to the GGP, you've obviously never used an flavor of UNIX other than Linux. Linux is NOT UNIX despite what some might want to tell you. It's inspired by UNIX but doesn't follow many of the forms that became common in true UNIX platforms. OSX is closer to BSD than Linux is, and as such I'm quite comfy in that environment having cut my teeth on NetBSD, FreeBSD and AT&T UNIX (yes, the real deal). Just because nothing is where you expect it coming from a hobbyist UNIX platform, doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. In fact, OSX has more in common with most commercial UNIX's (Unices?) than Linux will ever have. As a result, I think it's a better UNIX.
Just as an aside, is it wrong for Apple to make X11 an optional install that runs after the main GUI? No, because that's what OSX does. The average user doesn't need or want X11... and if you want or need X11 you're a power user almost by default. As such, you should be comfortable with installing it. If you really want to make OSX more Linux-like, download Fink and start installing some more GPL tools... I am a power user, and I'm glad I put in the extra work to learn OSX properly. I've used OS/2, Windows (since 2.0 and up to and including Vista), Mac (from the original MacOS to OSX), GEM, Linux, UNIX (various), AmigaOS, OS/400, S/36, and quite a number of embedded and RTOS's. I have to say that for me, OSX fits the bill. It does everything I want it to, very little that I don't. It's not perfect, but no OS has ever been perfect. I use it because it just works... because I can get my work done. I can tinker with the internals if I want to, but I rarely have to.
And by the way, app bundles are the bomb. Sure, they use a little more disk space... but disk space is cheap. Think of your applications as a folder (which they literally are in the UNIX filesystem) that contain all of the stuff you need to run the app including configs in some apps. Right click on an app and Show Package Contents sometime... it's quite educational. And download the dev packages and learn something about the OS. Even if you have no intention of developing software, the development kit is incredibly deep and will teach you more about the OS than you ever thought possible.
Well, there's a date on my desktop... I have my iCal in my dock, and I launch it on logon because I use it quite a bit. When the program's active, the icon displays the date. Where's the problem?
Incorrect... sort of. While Microsoft doesn't produce a sync client, they do open up the API's for the PocketPC sync so third-party developers can do it. I'm using "Missing Sync", which integrates lovely with iCal and Address Book, and allows me to move my phone (MPx220) back and forth between that and my work Windows laptop (Outlook, ActiveSync).
Saying that, I agree with your comments about the Apple Phone; they'd be fools to force a market lock-in. There are plenty of Windows users who want nicely integrated stuff like the Mac but for whatever reason chose Windows (gamers, anyone?). I know that my kids would be running an iMac right now if it weren't for the fact that the educational games they play aren't available for Mac.
Actually, though your mileage may vary I think the Fujitsu problem is really a problem of Fujitsu. Most notebook manufacturers will provide you parts with the caveat that if you're not out of warranty already you will be after you install your parts. In my life I've gotten replacement parts easily from Dell and Apple both. HP used to be great, but given all the reorgs lately I don't know what the hell's going on over there any more. IBM I found to be a pain to deal with, but selling you parts is not against their policy so they WILL do it grudgingly if you just tell them you're taking full responsibility for the laptop.
:)
Basically, I think your problem is actually a problem with a single manufacturer. Most manufacturers tend to be pretty good about it.
Having said that, despite having replaced small fiddly parts in Powerbooks in the past, when I got my Macbook Pro recently I bought the extended warranty with it so I wouldn't have to worry about it for another 3 years
Actually, this review is in the Chicago Sun Times; it's targeted at the average Joe Blow consumer, not the technical people. As a result, the style makes a lot of sense. The style is conversational, to try to get people to read it. It's also short and not very in-depth. Yes, you're right it focuses on all the bad aspects of the player with no room for the good. Well, that's how people think and how people talk in social circumstances. More often than not, people WANT to hear about the bad from a new MP3 player rather than the good; it gives them a reasonable expectation of their own experiences with the device. I know that if I buy a consumer level device and have a bad experience with it, I want to tell my friends about the bad and the good takes a serious back seat to the bad experiences I had. That's so I can try to help my peers and friends avoid the same pain I went through.
Honestly, if you can't even install the software without hitting support.microsoft.com then that's going to set a precedent among the average user. The sound quality and interface become secondary if you can't even get music onto the player without serious hassle. This reviewer just gave his opinion and his bad experiences with the software and hardware overshadowed everything else. In fact, it was some time before he could even get it to work! I agree with his point, on Christmas day the last thing I'd want to deal with is my 9 year old daughter bugging me constantly wondering why she can't use her new Zune. Of course, I don't think I'm going to spend that on her, but I see his point.
And the comparison to Apple? Well, the average consumer knows Apple, knows iPods... and refers to every MP3 player as an iPod. I've seen them in Best Buy so the comparison is valid. Plus the comparison to the Toshiba? Well, I don't know if you've taken a close look, but the Zune *is* a Toshiba device. It's an evolutionary advance on a player that Toshiba already sells with a new button interface and wireless. So although it's a bit of a stretch, that's a valid comparison too.
Yes, I've played with a Zune (though not the software I'll admit). I was underwhelmed. It seemed a little kludgy to me to get where I wanted in the interface (though I'll admit I am an iPod owner and therefore used to that interface), and the rubber coating reminded me of a rather disturbing green/brown sex toy. That's my personal opinion, and not to be taken as gospel, though!
Since when did we start calling "grit", "nanoparticles"? This is just silver dust being put in cleansers... so the particles are small? So what? Is this the latest "cool fad"?
I suppose my dog no longer leaves puppy bombs in the back yard... they're just massive piles of millions of "nanopoop".
Honestly, what I'm seeing more and more is that the "beige box" is dying because we've reached the point of diminishing returns with hardware upgrades. I used to be a serious hardware hacker, upgrading my hardware after only a couple of months of use. Yeah, that upgrade cycle still exists for video cards at the moment, but even then I am beginning to see huge investments for very little actual return as we're reaching the point where the human eye can no longer distinguish the difference. Essentially, there's fewer reasons to buy a "beige box" any more because 99% of what you want to do any more can be accomplished by a reasonable off-the-shelf machine.
:) ). That relegated my desktop box to a games machine... a $1000 games machine excluding the investment of my time and the components I transferred from the "old box". Where's the value proposition in that?
Another factor is that the OTS machine actually costs a lot less than it used to. Sure, I'd be the last person to buy your low-end Dell machine because... well... they're crap. But for 75% of the populous they're usually just good enough to get the job done... and do it cheaply and effectively. Why buy a "beige box" from a no-namer or the kid down the street that will probably cost more because of economies of scale, even if they cut corners all over the place. Hell, the last Dell a friend of mine bought cost less than the comparable components I could buy from NewEgg... in fact I think as I recall the motherboard, CPU and HD came to the same price, excluding the case, memory, power supply etc. etc.
There's also been a problem with hardware in that without a "secret decoder ring" half of the product descriptions mean nothing. The Pentium 4 for all its warts was pretty simple; it was a PIV at xGhz. Even then though the problem came in trying to match hardware when building a beige box; not a trivial proposition for most. The last computer I built was an Athlon, but even then the smorgasbord of different memory types and power supply styles just became a little overwhelming... and I do systems for a living!
So we're down to the point that people prefer to buy OTS machines because all the components are pretty assured to work together when you get it home and unbox it. They're cheap, they're disposable... so yes we've come down to the point that they're consumer electronics devices because unless you're a serious gamer or hobbyist then you're not interested in customizing your components. For a large percentage of the computer-buying population, OTS is good enough, and if it's not then they'll replace it in two years. I am not rich, I don't make a huge income... but a $350 expense is almost a throwaway in this country (the US). OK, I'm not going to hand some bum on the street $350, but I can justify buying an OTS machine for my kids for $350 that does everything they need today (basic email, web browsing and a little educational gaming and homework) that may last a year or so before I have to upgrade it or replace it because it's crap. I don't really care.
Another factor to consider is the growth of laptops into truly workhorse machines. I spent $800 upgrading components in my Athlon box mentioned above (Athlon 64), and I didn't even buy a new hard drive or case... just upgraded the motherboard memory and CPU. Sure, I slapped a new video card in there shortly afterward that bought my expenses up to about $1000 give or take... but what did that get me? Well, it was state of the art then, but was rapidly surpassed and is now passe. But my needs changed a little as well, so the box languished as I continued to use my PIII-733 laptop for most of my work (running Linux and OpenOffice) because it did exactly what I really needed my computer for (mostly) with the added advantage of portability (it also had a 7 hour battery life, which I sort of miss these days
My latest computers... three of them in the last 12 months have all been laptops. One Acer for my wife, a Gateway for my kids and an Apple for me. They're less power hu
Wrong, wrong wrong. If you have a job that keeps you awake so long you can't afford a night's sleep then you need to find a new job, not medicate yourself. You need to have a life, you need to work enough to live, not live enough to work. And you need to sleep, and be a social animal. To do less is to cheat yourself. These drugs just make it easier to cheat yourself and for your employer to cheat you. I used to work the 14 and 16 hour days until I made the realization that I was spending my entire life either working, driving or sleeping (what little I got) and I had no time for a social life.
In the last few years as I've gotten older, I've changed a lot. I work 8-10 hour days, I sleep 5-6 hours (I know, still not enough) and spend time with a wife and kids I adore. I wouldn't have been able to have any of that with the job I worked before. Now my job has changed again and I'm being encouraged to work 8 hour days... and told to leave at 9 hours because "... you should spend more time out of this place". That's per my manager!
The upshot? Medicating yourself cheats everyone and benefits no-one except a few more millionths of a penny on the company's stock price (if it's public)... if even that. You need to find your own value and value the life you lead. I may not be rich, but I am happy and have a family that money can't buy.
The post (and article) mentions a claim that they hold a patent to PVR technology; specifically "Computer controlled video system allowing playback during recording" according to their patent filing. The patent does seem to cover the appropriate technology... but what's this I see? A September 2001 date? Hmm... a quick Wikipedia search turns up references to the initial release of Tivo and ReplayTV back in 1999. I think what we have here is a clear case of prior art, so sorry Forgent... I think it's time to pack up your tent.