And, with XP being taken out back and shot in favor of the new baby, why didn't they try to come up with a scaled-down version of Vista that would run on the hardware? Surely they'd want to disprove the claims that Vista was a hardware pig any chance they got.
And then, with Windows 7 theoretically coming soon, they, theoretically, could use this hardware as a testbed for showing off just how *amazing* the performance of 7 is compared to everything else.
Regarding CE: Microsoft seems positively schizophrenic when it comes to positioning CE in any market...it's theoretically their "embedded OS" but out SAN uses "XP Embedded" as its controlling software, and apparently CE is relegated to basic phone use, down from the PDAs and smaller pseudo-PCs of the late 90s, early '00s (much like the Eee machine, come to think of it...)
If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union finally dissolved in 1991. So at some point, circa 1988, somebody in either Reagan or Bush's administration decided it'd be easier to get Plutonium from the Soviet Union? You know, the sworn enemy, evil empire, etc. etc.? And even weirder, the Soviet Union agreed?
I know, it was for NASA, not the Minuteman missile, but still...
I'm not familiar with writing games on a multi-core game system a la the PS3, but I have written multi-threaded apps in Windows and I can tell you that the answer is:
Maybe.
The problem is that your app might be multi-threaded up the wazoo, but you're at the mercy of the OS (Windows here) to actually put the threads on separate processors/cores. You can *request* a thread on a separate processor (SetProcessorAffinity(), if I recall..it's been awhile), but the docs state that this is merely a request, and the operating system is free to ignore it if it thinks it can do better. A lot of time I observed that Windows doled out threads to other processors very grudgingly, and I was told that it's because to Windows, the overhead of keeping track of what thread is on what processor was, under a lot of circumstances, more expensive (read: slower) than if it just kept them all on processor 0 and just context-switched (which it was going to be doing anyway)
Most games have been, as I've seen, multi-threaded for awhile now; the complexity of these games means they'd have an event loop that's a million lines long if they didn't (and probably do anyway), but your performance is always going to be only as good as the hardware, and the operating system, let you.
Per the article, sure, you can switch to a Pepsi in a second if you don't like the Coke, but both Pepsi and Coke spend *enormous* amounts of money to suggest that switching to the competitor's product will make you less desirable to women, less success at your job, etc. That's what advertising is all about, trying to get you to lock *yourself* in, willingly, to a single product.
But I digress...
Everybody dreams of being Ma Bell, where even putting a plastic cone on a headset could "damage the network". A lot of companies have had their turn too. We all think of Microsoft as being the king of lock-in, but for my money, it would still be IBM, where their mainframes and mid-range machines were so locked down that you had to get approval to install *anything*. At least with a PC or even a Mac, you can install another OS and you're free and clear. With IBM equipment, they could shut you down remotely if you missed a single "usage" payment (which was calculated *by* *the* *processor* *cycle*!!).
I cannot think of a single company that wouldn't want total lock-in of its users, regardless of industry. Some are just more capable of doing it than others.
Oh yes, I absolutely *loved* those keyboards. I still wish they made 'em and I'd have one hooked up via USB to my Mac in a second. Every keystroke was something you *meant*...no half-hearted typing on that thing.
One downside I discovered, is that they made FPS games harder to play...I want to go backwards, away from the fire...I don't want to *mean* to go backwards, away from the fire.
BTW, the link you provided shows the later model ones with the plastic shell. The earlier ones, the ones that shipped with the original IBM PC and on early model 3270 terminals were *all* metal, even the exterior casing, with the IBM logo seemingly welded on.
(For me, anyway). I still use VC 6 for C++ work simply because it was the last example of an IDE (I'm just talking IDE) that had everything I wanted; it was clean but more importantly, *fast*. I skipped the initial.net releases because of the lack of an upgraded C++ compiler and eagerly installed VS2005 to discover that MS had turned VS into a bloated monster that was slow to open do *anything* (the performance of Intellisense greatly improved my knowledge of MFC because it was easier to memorize all the methods than wait for it to show them to me), as well as having some bizarre GUI choices (tabbed windows with the close button off to the far side of the app, instead of on the tab itself???, plus the sliding windows (yes, I can dock them, but for some reason they would sometimes "undock"). Basically it didn't "feel" right to me.
Plus they committed, in my opinion, the unforgivable sin of trying to push their _s* functions that they said were "safe" instead of ones like strncat, strncpy, etc. The first time I compiled some code in VS2005 I freaked...what are all these warnings? Then I discover it's Microsoft being "helpful" and I was annoyed. Then I realized they wanted to make my code entirely Windows-dependent (functions that start with _ are not standard) and I was enraged. What *really* enraged me was that you have to turn these stupid warnings off per project...if there's a way to turn it off in the options dialog I have no idea where it is. What made me scream was that they word the warning in such a way as to think the *standard* calls the functions depreciated. Herb Sutter, you should be ashamed of yourself for letting MS get away with this.
I will give VS2008 a chance, but VS2005 with all its "standards compliant goodness" was not enough to sway me from VS6. The bloated IDE + improper warnings has utterly soured me on developing for windows; I don't want to do.net...I write server based C++ software where fast isn't fast enough. VS2005 was also not fast enough. Maybe I'll just bite the bullet and learn to write in Vim and compile at the command prompt.
I had so many hopes that we'd have solved so many of the world's problems by the time DNF was released! I was expecting to bring the game with me to my summer timeshare on Mars!
So many dreams shattered. Oh wait, it's just a trailer, not the real thing. Dream on, then!
'Cause I don't. I've lamented the death of the LP since CDs appeared; the only benefit CDs ever gave me was that I didn't have to flip the disc over. What did we lose? Well, in a lot of cases, liner notes, the cool label on the media, etc.)
What I miss is the *packaging* of the LP. They were big and afforded great album art, along with all kinds of neat extras (like the spinning wheel on Led Zeppelin III, or the zipper on Sticky Fingers, or the stickers and posters in Dark Side of the Moon). And even without the extras there are just so many album covers that are just great *art*. It was the cover that made me buy Joy Division's "Closer", even though at the time I'd never heard of them. Frankly, the album cover, AFAIC, is still the best part of the record.;)
So, hey, music industry...why don't you downplay the actual tracks and hit up on the packaging? In the Internet world everything is just a stream of bytes so your bytes aren't much more special (and certainly not worth more) than anyone else's stream of bytes. So give it up and make something tangible, keep-able, desirable. Put the disc in a wooden box with a wool interior, or wrap it in tinfoil, whatever...make the *experience* more meaningful. As much as I enjoy the convenience of buying a track in iTMS, I am missing an "experience" that I got with some of the better-packaged albums.
And the crazy thing is that this is not new to the music industry; they've put out special collectors editions of stuff for years and years; I have CDs that came in pseudo-film cannisters, wooden boxes, even bubble-wrap. Sure I paid a premium but I didn't just want the music, I wanted the creative packaging as well.
The problem is that IBM didn't realize its position was in jeopardy until it was too late; remember that IBM wanted to get a PC into the market in quick-n-dirty style and getting Intel to supply the processor and Microsoft to supply the OS was just a corner-cutting move.
Microsoft, to their credit, knows their history; they relentlessly push into every single market, from game consoles to cell phones to every type of software simply because they are terrified that the *one* thing they overlooked is what came back to kill them. Sure most of their products stink and don't make money, but at least they've got a presence, regardless of how small or laughable.
I am using it to write a scriptable Java application. JRuby has saved me literally thousands of hours trying to implement my own pseudo language just to support a simple DSL in the app. And because it's Ruby, I can now do all kinds of things that my own language couldn't do, like loops. When we give the app to users, we tell them it's scriptable, here's the DSL objects, and here's a website on Ruby; you're limited only by your imagination.
Plus it works in Java 5, so I can use it instead of waiting for Apple to release Java6 with its built in JavaScript scripting language (which I don't like nearly as much as Ruby).
Your comment might be true for a regular desktop machine where there's plenty of room for another disk or two, and the memory slots are easy to get to. A laptop, however, is a bigger deal; yes I can get a laptop with 4 gig of ram and a 200gig disk, but it will put me back $4000. The majority of laptops in my life have 1 gig of ram *at *most*. It's too expensive to roll out a couple hundred laptops with the specs to make using Vista feel comfortable.
Whenever I hear "supercomputer" and Unix I think of using a Cray and Unicos, which was the version of Unix that ran on them. Unicos was, at least the version I used, the ultimate in bare-bones Unix. I think when people think of Unix today they think of something like Linux or the BSDs or OS X, or whatever where the environment is very rich with tools. Unix on a supercomputer is not much more than an interface between your C (or Fortran) program and the bare metal; they don't (again, in my experience) make it the kind of environment you *use*...you get your code on the machine, compile it, submit it, and log off and wait for an email.
Maybe this NEC machine is different but Unix on a supercomputer is like the cockpit of a Forumula 1 race car; just there to provide a way to steer, comforts be damned.
The reason is because Flex Builder is not free. You need to enter a serial # to use it after 30 days. The SDK *is* free, and you can do everything using just Vim and the Flex compiler, but as one who has done Flex development, that's like using ImageMagick at the command line instead of Gimp; sure you can do it, but it's not particularly easy.
I won a copy of Vista in a drawing, and while I didn't really intend to install it, I figured I'd at least see what was in the box. Whoever designed that plastic box is a sadist; that was so unbelievably *not* intuitive on how something should be opened. I couldn't believe that I was getting frustrated, and then *infuriated* just trying to OPEN the damn thing. When I did get it opened, part of the plastic hinge broke off, meaning now it would never stay closed. Not only did I not install Vista, I threw the whole thing away, disc and all; if Microsoft can piss me off so much just trying open the stupid package, no jury in the world would convict me for being the psycho I would probably become using it.
I run Tiger on a 450mhz G4 that I bought in 2000 and I use it primarily as a server. What's interesting is that I only ever use the console from VNC and even through that additional interface, it's surprisingly usable. It's not fast, and it's definitely nothing I want to use day-in and day-out, but if that's all I had and all I wanted was something to web surf or write the odd document or two, it'd certainly be usable.
I don't think it's that bad. Two years isn't five, and Apple didn't promise a whole lot of stuff that ended up getting ripped out at the 11th hour (*cough* WinFS *cough*) because they couldn't figure out how to make it work. Also Apple didn't have to "start all over again" with a different kernel because the current Tiger one wasn't going to work. Apple has been making incremental advances without promising any HUGE! AMAZING! MUST-HAVE! features (which is good because Leopard's new feature set doesn't really qualify).
I think Apple and Microsoft are in the same boat, so to speak; Tiger works good enough, XP works good enough, so why upgrade? Sure there are features in Leopard that I'm pining away for, but speaking as an Apple fanboy, I have been completely underwhelmed by Leopard as solving any problem I solved years ago on Tiger.
So yes, I think you're right in that Leopard is Apple's Vista, but in a different way: I think both are watershed moments when the need to upgrade was trumped by people just needing to get stuff done and "deh shiny" started to be nothing more than gratuitous.
I block ads for simply one reason: ads that play music, or have an announcer, or whatever. I can ignore or not a general purpose banner ad, but when I'm browsing because I'm the only one in my family that can't sleep at 3 am and suddenly my speakers start booming for an ad, waking up everybody, the word enraged does not do my feelings justice.
...the version that was available for the IBM PC? It was one of the original programs available on the PC and was, presumably ported, by that little company that provides DOS, Microsoft. In a nod to the future of DRM, it was also the first program I came across that was "copy protected"; you could make a single copy and then that was it.
Man, that game was just so much freaking fun; I can still see that little bird driving the snake away to this day.
...that if this really does spell the end of SCO that two versions of Unix, OpenServer and UnixWare may effectively disappear (though one could argue that has already happened).
Don't get me wrong, I applaud the decision and hope all those jerks get their comeuppance, but there was a time when SCO and Unixware were the answers to Unix on the x86 platform and I would sort of miss them in a nostalgia sort of way.
I know the answer to this one! I have been running the Fusion beta since the beginning, and bought it just before the release (which was this past weekend). I have tested Fusion with 64 and 32-bit versions of Linux and Windows and they all work flawlessly. I have also tested OpenBSD, Solaris, and even the Vmware image of the OLPC software and it's all been great. Fusion is based on Workstation 6, and the only glaring omission is that it doesn't have multiple snapshots; it can do a single snapshot but not the trees of snapshots like in Workstation.
I have not used Parallels as I am a big VMware fan (use Workstation and server at work) and can't compare between the two. I will say that if you are happy with VMware products for Linux or Windows, the Mac version is definitely in the same camp...it's been rock solid (even the first beta!) and performance is excellent on my MacBook Pro...I have a Solaris virtual machine running Oracle 10g that I use for development, with some tables having millions of rows, and performance is great (for a single developer).
...for me until I submit my job on a VT-102 sitting in the drafty basement of a computer lab and then come back later after a dinner of Chinese food to get my green-n-white bar printouts from my cubby.
Hooray for 10.5 being Unix-certified...now some of us can live in both the past and the future at the *very* *same* *time*!!
Slashdot Mirror
And, with XP being taken out back and shot in favor of the new baby, why didn't they try to come up with a scaled-down version of Vista that would run on the hardware? Surely they'd want to disprove the claims that Vista was a hardware pig any chance they got.
And then, with Windows 7 theoretically coming soon, they, theoretically, could use this hardware as a testbed for showing off just how *amazing* the performance of 7 is compared to everything else.
Regarding CE: Microsoft seems positively schizophrenic when it comes to positioning CE in any market...it's theoretically their "embedded OS" but out SAN uses "XP Embedded" as its controlling software, and apparently CE is relegated to basic phone use, down from the PDAs and smaller pseudo-PCs of the late 90s, early '00s (much like the Eee machine, come to think of it...)
If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union finally dissolved in 1991. So at some point, circa 1988, somebody in either Reagan or Bush's administration decided it'd be easier to get Plutonium from the Soviet Union? You know, the sworn enemy, evil empire, etc. etc.? And even weirder, the Soviet Union agreed?
I know, it was for NASA, not the Minuteman missile, but still...
I still don't want it, though.
I'm not familiar with writing games on a multi-core game system a la the PS3, but I have written multi-threaded apps in Windows and I can tell you that the answer is:
Maybe.
The problem is that your app might be multi-threaded up the wazoo, but you're at the mercy of the OS (Windows here) to actually put the threads on separate processors/cores. You can *request* a thread on a separate processor (SetProcessorAffinity(), if I recall..it's been awhile), but the docs state that this is merely a request, and the operating system is free to ignore it if it thinks it can do better. A lot of time I observed that Windows doled out threads to other processors very grudgingly, and I was told that it's because to Windows, the overhead of keeping track of what thread is on what processor was, under a lot of circumstances, more expensive (read: slower) than if it just kept them all on processor 0 and just context-switched (which it was going to be doing anyway)
Most games have been, as I've seen, multi-threaded for awhile now; the complexity of these games means they'd have an event loop that's a million lines long if they didn't (and probably do anyway), but your performance is always going to be only as good as the hardware, and the operating system, let you.
Per the article, sure, you can switch to a Pepsi in a second if you don't like the Coke, but both Pepsi and Coke spend *enormous* amounts of money to suggest that switching to the competitor's product will make you less desirable to women, less success at your job, etc. That's what advertising is all about, trying to get you to lock *yourself* in, willingly, to a single product.
But I digress...
Everybody dreams of being Ma Bell, where even putting a plastic cone on a headset could "damage the network". A lot of companies have had their turn too. We all think of Microsoft as being the king of lock-in, but for my money, it would still be IBM, where their mainframes and mid-range machines were so locked down that you had to get approval to install *anything*. At least with a PC or even a Mac, you can install another OS and you're free and clear. With IBM equipment, they could shut you down remotely if you missed a single "usage" payment (which was calculated *by* *the* *processor* *cycle*!!).
I cannot think of a single company that wouldn't want total lock-in of its users, regardless of industry. Some are just more capable of doing it than others.
Oh yes, I absolutely *loved* those keyboards. I still wish they made 'em and I'd have one hooked up via USB to my Mac in a second. Every keystroke was something you *meant*...no half-hearted typing on that thing.
One downside I discovered, is that they made FPS games harder to play...I want to go backwards, away from the fire...I don't want to *mean* to go backwards, away from the fire.
BTW, the link you provided shows the later model ones with the plastic shell. The earlier ones, the ones that shipped with the original IBM PC and on early model 3270 terminals were *all* metal, even the exterior casing, with the IBM logo seemingly welded on.
Plus they committed, in my opinion, the unforgivable sin of trying to push their _s* functions that they said were "safe" instead of ones like strncat, strncpy, etc. The first time I compiled some code in VS2005 I freaked...what are all these warnings? Then I discover it's Microsoft being "helpful" and I was annoyed. Then I realized they wanted to make my code entirely Windows-dependent (functions that start with _ are not standard) and I was enraged. What *really* enraged me was that you have to turn these stupid warnings off per project
I will give VS2008 a chance, but VS2005 with all its "standards compliant goodness" was not enough to sway me from VS6. The bloated IDE + improper warnings has utterly soured me on developing for windows; I don't want to do
So if Sony is the last holdout in the DRM space, what's the point of the RIAA again?
I had so many hopes that we'd have solved so many of the world's problems by the time DNF was released! I was expecting to bring the game with me to my summer timeshare on Mars!
So many dreams shattered. Oh wait, it's just a trailer, not the real thing. Dream on, then!
'Cause I don't. I've lamented the death of the LP since CDs appeared; the only benefit CDs ever gave me was that I didn't have to flip the disc over. What did we lose? Well, in a lot of cases, liner notes, the cool label on the media, etc.)
;)
What I miss is the *packaging* of the LP. They were big and afforded great album art, along with all kinds of neat extras (like the spinning wheel on Led Zeppelin III, or the zipper on Sticky Fingers, or the stickers and posters in Dark Side of the Moon). And even without the extras there are just so many album covers that are just great *art*. It was the cover that made me buy Joy Division's "Closer", even though at the time I'd never heard of them. Frankly, the album cover, AFAIC, is still the best part of the record.
So, hey, music industry...why don't you downplay the actual tracks and hit up on the packaging? In the Internet world everything is just a stream of bytes so your bytes aren't much more special (and certainly not worth more) than anyone else's stream of bytes. So give it up and make something tangible, keep-able, desirable. Put the disc in a wooden box with a wool interior, or wrap it in tinfoil, whatever...make the *experience* more meaningful. As much as I enjoy the convenience of buying a track in iTMS, I am missing an "experience" that I got with some of the better-packaged albums.
And the crazy thing is that this is not new to the music industry; they've put out special collectors editions of stuff for years and years; I have CDs that came in pseudo-film cannisters, wooden boxes, even bubble-wrap. Sure I paid a premium but I didn't just want the music, I wanted the creative packaging as well.
The problem is that IBM didn't realize its position was in jeopardy until it was too late; remember that IBM wanted to get a PC into the market in quick-n-dirty style and getting Intel to supply the processor and Microsoft to supply the OS was just a corner-cutting move.
Microsoft, to their credit, knows their history; they relentlessly push into every single market, from game consoles to cell phones to every type of software simply because they are terrified that the *one* thing they overlooked is what came back to kill them. Sure most of their products stink and don't make money, but at least they've got a presence, regardless of how small or laughable.
I am using it to write a scriptable Java application. JRuby has saved me literally thousands of hours trying to implement my own pseudo language just to support a simple DSL in the app. And because it's Ruby, I can now do all kinds of things that my own language couldn't do, like loops. When we give the app to users, we tell them it's scriptable, here's the DSL objects, and here's a website on Ruby; you're limited only by your imagination.
Plus it works in Java 5, so I can use it instead of waiting for Apple to release Java6 with its built in JavaScript scripting language (which I don't like nearly as much as Ruby).
I care.
Your comment might be true for a regular desktop machine where there's plenty of room for another disk or two, and the memory slots are easy to get to. A laptop, however, is a bigger deal; yes I can get a laptop with 4 gig of ram and a 200gig disk, but it will put me back $4000. The majority of laptops in my life have 1 gig of ram *at *most*. It's too expensive to roll out a couple hundred laptops with the specs to make using Vista feel comfortable.
Whenever I hear "supercomputer" and Unix I think of using a Cray and Unicos, which was the version of Unix that ran on them. Unicos was, at least the version I used, the ultimate in bare-bones Unix. I think when people think of Unix today they think of something like Linux or the BSDs or OS X, or whatever where the environment is very rich with tools. Unix on a supercomputer is not much more than an interface between your C (or Fortran) program and the bare metal; they don't (again, in my experience) make it the kind of environment you *use*...you get your code on the machine, compile it, submit it, and log off and wait for an email.
Maybe this NEC machine is different but Unix on a supercomputer is like the cockpit of a Forumula 1 race car; just there to provide a way to steer, comforts be damned.
The reason is because Flex Builder is not free. You need to enter a serial # to use it after 30 days. The SDK *is* free, and you can do everything using just Vim and the Flex compiler, but as one who has done Flex development, that's like using ImageMagick at the command line instead of Gimp; sure you can do it, but it's not particularly easy.
I won a copy of Vista in a drawing, and while I didn't really intend to install it, I figured I'd at least see what was in the box. Whoever designed that plastic box is a sadist; that was so unbelievably *not* intuitive on how something should be opened. I couldn't believe that I was getting frustrated, and then *infuriated* just trying to OPEN the damn thing. When I did get it opened, part of the plastic hinge broke off, meaning now it would never stay closed. Not only did I not install Vista, I threw the whole thing away, disc and all; if Microsoft can piss me off so much just trying open the stupid package, no jury in the world would convict me for being the psycho I would probably become using it.
I run Tiger on a 450mhz G4 that I bought in 2000 and I use it primarily as a server. What's interesting is that I only ever use the console from VNC and even through that additional interface, it's surprisingly usable. It's not fast, and it's definitely nothing I want to use day-in and day-out, but if that's all I had and all I wanted was something to web surf or write the odd document or two, it'd certainly be usable.
I don't think it's that bad. Two years isn't five, and Apple didn't promise a whole lot of stuff that ended up getting ripped out at the 11th hour (*cough* WinFS *cough*) because they couldn't figure out how to make it work. Also Apple didn't have to "start all over again" with a different kernel because the current Tiger one wasn't going to work. Apple has been making incremental advances without promising any HUGE! AMAZING! MUST-HAVE! features (which is good because Leopard's new feature set doesn't really qualify).
I think Apple and Microsoft are in the same boat, so to speak; Tiger works good enough, XP works good enough, so why upgrade? Sure there are features in Leopard that I'm pining away for, but speaking as an Apple fanboy, I have been completely underwhelmed by Leopard as solving any problem I solved years ago on Tiger.
So yes, I think you're right in that Leopard is Apple's Vista, but in a different way: I think both are watershed moments when the need to upgrade was trumped by people just needing to get stuff done and "deh shiny" started to be nothing more than gratuitous.
My Google Search Appliance just disappeared in a poof of smoke and logic!
I block ads for simply one reason: ads that play music, or have an announcer, or whatever. I can ignore or not a general purpose banner ad, but when I'm browsing because I'm the only one in my family that can't sleep at 3 am and suddenly my speakers start booming for an ad, waking up everybody, the word enraged does not do my feelings justice.
Is Rogue still being developed? I thought Nethack merged Rogue and Hack and was the only version still being (more or less) developed.
But yeah, good times...a lot of hours playing those games on a VT102 in the comp sci basement....
...the version that was available for the IBM PC? It was one of the original programs available on the PC and was, presumably ported, by that little company that provides DOS, Microsoft. In a nod to the future of DRM, it was also the first program I came across that was "copy protected"; you could make a single copy and then that was it.
Man, that game was just so much freaking fun; I can still see that little bird driving the snake away to this day.
XYZZY forever, baby!
...that if this really does spell the end of SCO that two versions of Unix, OpenServer and UnixWare may effectively disappear (though one could argue that has already happened).
Don't get me wrong, I applaud the decision and hope all those jerks get their comeuppance, but there was a time when SCO and Unixware were the answers to Unix on the x86 platform and I would sort of miss them in a nostalgia sort of way.
I know the answer to this one! I have been running the Fusion beta since the beginning, and bought it just before the release (which was this past weekend). I have tested Fusion with 64 and 32-bit versions of Linux and Windows and they all work flawlessly. I have also tested OpenBSD, Solaris, and even the Vmware image of the OLPC software and it's all been great. Fusion is based on Workstation 6, and the only glaring omission is that it doesn't have multiple snapshots; it can do a single snapshot but not the trees of snapshots like in Workstation.
I have not used Parallels as I am a big VMware fan (use Workstation and server at work) and can't compare between the two. I will say that if you are happy with VMware products for Linux or Windows, the Mac version is definitely in the same camp...it's been rock solid (even the first beta!) and performance is excellent on my MacBook Pro...I have a Solaris virtual machine running Oracle 10g that I use for development, with some tables having millions of rows, and performance is great (for a single developer).
...for me until I submit my job on a VT-102 sitting in the drafty basement of a computer lab and then come back later after a dinner of Chinese food to get my green-n-white bar printouts from my cubby.
Hooray for 10.5 being Unix-certified...now some of us can live in both the past and the future at the *very* *same* *time*!!