Integrated Flat Panel Computer has a small foot-print, integrated flat panel display and CPU chassis. Priced from $1500 to 2170 depending on CPU (Pentium MMX or K6), LCD size(12.1, 13.3, 14.1) and hard drive size (2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 6.0).
It's actually what I wished the iMac was more like(using LCD instead of a tube).
It's very hard to trust micro$oft's motives after watching them backstab business partner after business partner. Why should we expect them to treat the open source community any differently than they did the Java community?
If micro$oft does go thru with with their proposal to open source windows, I fully expect them to blind side the open source community within a year, year and a half.
Just cuz the computer press denounces it(perhaps for fear of losing micro$oft ad money?) doesn't mean it's not a viable alternative to windows. After all, if it wasn't useable, you wouldn't see things like:
A quick look at the Large OS/2 Customers List shows a lot of banks. Banks can't afford for their systems to be down as customers tend to get rather irate if they cannot access their money.
As far as updates, IBM is still releasing free fixpacks for Warp 4.0 as well as 3.0(released in 94). If you'd rather not download the fixpacks, OS/2 Super Site offers them burned on a CD for about $15. Current device drivers can be found at IBM's online Device Driver Pack. In the past 30 days 2 new drivers have been added and 264 drivers have been updated.
For typical office needs, Staroffice can handle current MS office documents and is available for OS/2, Linux, and even Windows.
OS/2 even provides for a Y2K compliant Windows 3 environment.
What other everyday needs do you have? Perhaps people can send you suggested replacements. For a ready made list of comparable applications for OS/2, check The OS/2 Alternative site.
You're part of the problem if you just let micro$oft keep screwing you over.
I'm sorry if you only watch crap on TV. A tip for you, a lot of quality programming can easily be found by tuning in TLC, Discovery, or your local PBS channel.
I'm not arguing against the "added features" of DVD. It has some nice ones, just like FAT32 has some nice features when viewed against the prior FAT file systems.
I'm arguing that just like FAT32, DVD didn't go as far as it could have when compared with what came before.
Since you brought it up, Laser Disks have random access, additional content, multiple sound tracks, digital sound. Very few use more than 1 disk. The ones that do, such as the 2 disk collector's edition of Toy Story, tend to contain lots of additional content, such as all of the prior PIXAR productions.
As far as digital dolby 5.1, you'll need to invest in new expensive sound equipment to be able to benefit, just like you'd need to invest in new expensive video equipment in order to access the better resolution of an HDTV capable DVD. You can still use DVD without a new sound equipment, just like you can use DVD without a new video system. Just as the sound is dramatically better when you upgrade your audio components, wouldn't it be great if when you upgraded to an HDTV set that ALL of your DVD colletion would look dramatically better? You'd just be able to get more out of your DVD investment as you upgrade the other parts of your audio-video system.
DVD will be the furby of '99... Hmm, let's all be lemmings, which seems extremely counter to most of what the./ clientel stand for. If./'ers were lemmings, we'd all be rooting for ms in the lawsuit.
maybe if I use an analogy that./er's can understand...
DVD is to consumer video as FAT32 is to windows 98 hard drives
FAT32 is slightly better than what was used before(in the windows world). It solves the wasted space problems encountered with larger disk drives. However, FAT32 is not the best solution to hard drive storage formats.
Likewise, DVD has a slightly higher resolution than what came before in the consumer video world, but it could have been so much more.
To me, all the people praising DVD for what it did to an analog TV's picture quality is exactly the same as all the people hyping FAT32 for being the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I've seen both 16:9 tube sets as well as projection sets. Best Buy here in Houston uses 16:9 tube sets to demo anamorphic(widescreen, not letter boxed) DVD movies.
It's pretty lame when you don't check your facts first.
Ever try to fit an 8" wide device in a 5.25" bay? True, computer compatiblitiy was probably a deciding factor in the final form. However, by using the already designed but not used double layer DVD, the capacity could have easily been achieved on a 5" disk. The double layer works by having the first layer be semi-transparent. The laser can focus on either layer to read the data(similar to how you can see thru a rain covered window by focusing thru the raindrops).
The relatively large amount of CD-form-factor infrastructure around also makes life more convenient. not really, 8" is one of the sizes that laser disks come in. 8" disks tend to be karaoke and music videos.
Plus, 8" disks would be too damned big. The artwork on a laser disk sleeve tends to look a lot better than the artwork on DVD box.
I picked up one of the first SVHS decks available in the US, in 1988. DVD didn't show up until 9 years later in 1997(again, in the US).
The difference in picture quality isn't as great between DVD and SVHS as it is between VHS and SVHS. Based on the values of DVD = 480, LD = 425, and VHS= 240 (found in this DVD faq) SVHS has 77% more picture detail than VHS, while DVD only has 13% more picture detail than SVHS. Plus SVHS has the definite advantage of recording over DVD.
sorry, it isn't HDTV. I keep up with video quite a bit and know of what I speak.
Check this DVD Faq, where you will find the following in section 2.9: DVD-Video does not directly support HDTV as well as DTV format, which includes both high definition (HD) and standard definition (SD)...SD (704x480 at 24P, 30P, 60I, 60P) and HD (1280x720 at 60P and 1920x1080 at 30P).
While 480p is DTV, specifically SDTV, it is not defined as an HDTV format. HDTV formats are only 720 and up(after all, if it's the same resolution as current TV's, it's not High Definition, is it?)
NTSC is defined as 525i, however it actually only shows 480i. There are 20+ scan lines before the top of the picture, and another 20+ scan lines after the bottome of the picture. These non-visible scan lines are used to carry additional information(such as closed captioning), as well as to give the video beam time to move from the bottom of the picture tube back to the top.
If they had made the disk slightly larger, say midway between a Laserdisk and a CD(about 8 inches diameter) they would have had the capacity to do so. By doing so, we wouldn't now be stuck in the scenerio of "nothing to watch on HDTV, so why buy it?". HDTV will basically sell itself, but only if you can see how much better the picture is.
It also saves the problem of people not upgrading because the current system is good enough. An excellent example of this happening is SVHS(Super VHS). The SVHS decks provide laser disk quality on a video tape, while maintaining the ability to play/record the original VHS tapes. In spite of the obvious increase in picture quality (about double the resolution), very few SVHS decks were sold.
That's my major grip with DVD. DVD does look OK when viewed on current low-quality TVs, but does not buy you anything with an HDTV set. It would have been a seriously major boost to the acceptance of HDTV if you could purchase movies with HDTV quality.
For a non-interlaced picture (flicker-free games) you can use 320x240 or even 640x240(these are for NTSC, PAL is slightly higher in the resolution at the expense of picture update frequency). The current playstation also supports 640x480 images. the game Einhander has a graphics library composed of pictures at this resolution.
The specs for the Playstation 2 indicate that it will suport HDTV(wide screen gaming!!!) as well as computer monitors. However, it does not dictate what resolutions it will support.
Visit my homepage for the OS/2 version of Stella, or the Stella Homepage for version for Linux, Mac, Amiga, and many other operating systems(even winblows).
Sorry, but I'm not familiar with X11. As my signature should tipped you off, I'm an OS/2 user and thus am familiar with a very consistent user interface! This site is "News for Nerds", not "News for Linux users"...
The fact that it's made by microsoft is extremely relevant because their business practices are questionable.
if you write cross-platform software, don't bother them for help if you have windows programming issues
dumping software(IE for free) to put competitors out of business. Last I heard, dumping was illegal. Their own computer dictionary defines IE as an application, so don't bother telling me it's really part of the OS. It's also rather hard to consider it part of the OS as it's available for the Macintosh:-)
threathening software stores with higher prices if they sold ANY OS/2 software(even if special ordered by the customer)
their OEM stranglehold which prevents the preloading of non-ms operating systems.
...
because of the way they do business, I(and many others) elect not to buy ANY of their software, even if it might be good.
I'd seriously have to disagree with Marc's statement of "I can't say I really blame manufacturers for..." not giving a refund. After all, if the manufacturers would sell us what we ask for, then they'd never be in this predicament. It's not like they don't let you choose a different monitor, video card, etc. The OS should be no different!
I have had problems with some MP3's under OS/2. There's a utility (for OS/2) called UNCOOK that fixed the problem. I suspect some incoding software puts bogus info in the MP3 file and UNCOOK takes it out.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually what I wished the iMac was more like(using LCD instead of a tube).
Commodore Amiga 500 :-)
It's very hard to trust micro$oft's motives after watching them backstab business partner after business partner. Why should we expect them to treat the open source community any differently than they did the Java community?
If micro$oft does go thru with with their proposal to open source windows, I fully expect them to blind side the open source community within a year, year and a half.
Just cuz the computer press denounces it(perhaps for fear of losing micro$oft ad money?) doesn't mean it's not a viable alternative to windows. After all, if it wasn't useable, you wouldn't see things like:
A quick look at the Large OS/2 Customers List shows a lot of banks. Banks can't afford for their systems to be down as customers tend to get rather irate if they cannot access their money.
As far as updates, IBM is still releasing free fixpacks for Warp 4.0 as well as 3.0(released in 94). If you'd rather not download the fixpacks, OS/2 Super Site offers them burned on a CD for about $15. Current device drivers can be found at IBM's online Device Driver Pack. In the past 30 days 2 new drivers have been added and 264 drivers have been updated.
For typical office needs, Staroffice can handle current MS office documents and is available for OS/2, Linux, and even Windows.
OS/2 even provides for a Y2K compliant Windows 3 environment.
What other everyday needs do you have? Perhaps people can send you suggested replacements. For a ready made list of comparable applications for OS/2, check The OS/2 Alternative site.
You're part of the problem if you just let micro$oft keep screwing you over.
I'm sorry if you only watch crap on TV. A tip for you, a lot of quality programming can easily be found by tuning in TLC, Discovery, or your local PBS channel.
then by that arguement I'd have to say that Linux is not available at all because you cannot walk into Sears and buy a computer preloaded with Linux.
I'm not arguing against the "added features" of DVD. It has some nice ones, just like FAT32 has some nice features when viewed against the prior FAT file systems.
I'm arguing that just like FAT32, DVD didn't go as far as it could have when compared with what came before.
Since you brought it up, Laser Disks have random access, additional content, multiple sound tracks, digital sound. Very few use more than 1 disk. The ones that do, such as the 2 disk collector's edition of Toy Story, tend to contain lots of additional content, such as all of the prior PIXAR productions.
As far as digital dolby 5.1, you'll need to invest in new expensive sound equipment to be able to benefit, just like you'd need to invest in new expensive video equipment in order to access the better resolution of an HDTV capable DVD. You can still use DVD without a new sound equipment, just like you can use DVD without a new video system. Just as the sound is dramatically better when you upgrade your audio components, wouldn't it be great if when you upgraded to an HDTV set that ALL of your DVD colletion would look dramatically better? You'd just be able to get more out of your DVD investment as you upgrade the other parts of your audio-video system.
DVD will be the furby of '99... Hmm, let's all be lemmings, which seems extremely counter to most of what the ./ clientel stand for. If ./'ers were lemmings, we'd all be rooting for ms in the lawsuit.
maybe if I use an analogy that ./er's can understand...
DVD is to consumer video as FAT32 is to windows 98 hard drives
FAT32 is slightly better than what was used before(in the windows world). It solves the wasted space problems encountered with larger disk drives. However, FAT32 is not the best solution to hard drive storage formats.
Likewise, DVD has a slightly higher resolution than what came before in the consumer video world, but it could have been so much more.
To me, all the people praising DVD for what it did to an analog TV's picture quality is exactly the same as all the people hyping FAT32 for being the greatest thing since sliced bread.
you'll have to admit there is a major difference between not available at all and available but more expensive.
should have be "seldom used" :-)
Instead of using the dual layer to get up to 4 hours per side, it could have been used to achieve HDTV resolutions.
I've seen both 16:9 tube sets as well as projection sets. Best Buy here in Houston uses 16:9 tube sets to demo anamorphic(widescreen, not letter boxed) DVD movies.
It's pretty lame when you don't check your facts first.
Ever try to fit an 8" wide device in a 5.25" bay?
True, computer compatiblitiy was probably a deciding factor in the final form. However, by using the already designed but not used double layer DVD, the capacity could have easily been achieved on a 5" disk. The double layer works by having the first layer be semi-transparent. The laser can focus on either layer to read the data(similar to how you can see thru a rain covered window by focusing thru the raindrops).
The relatively large amount of CD-form-factor infrastructure around also makes life more convenient.
not really, 8" is one of the sizes that laser disks come in. 8" disks tend to be karaoke and music videos.
Plus, 8" disks would be too damned big.
The artwork on a laser disk sleeve tends to look a lot better than the artwork on DVD box.
so how could it have been too late?
I picked up one of the first SVHS decks available in the US, in 1988. DVD didn't show up until 9 years later in 1997(again, in the US).
The difference in picture quality isn't as great between DVD and SVHS as it is between VHS and SVHS. Based on the values of DVD = 480, LD = 425, and VHS= 240 (found in this DVD faq) SVHS has 77% more picture detail than VHS, while DVD only has 13% more picture detail than SVHS. Plus SVHS has the definite advantage of recording over DVD.
sorry, it isn't HDTV. I keep up with video quite a bit and know of what I speak.
Check this DVD Faq, where you will find the following in section 2.9:
DVD-Video does not directly support HDTV as well as
DTV format, which includes both high definition (HD) and standard definition (SD)...SD (704x480 at 24P, 30P, 60I, 60P) and HD (1280x720 at 60P and 1920x1080 at 30P).
While 480p is DTV, specifically SDTV, it is not defined as an HDTV format. HDTV formats are only 720 and up(after all, if it's the same resolution as current TV's, it's not High Definition, is it?)
NTSC is defined as 525i, however it actually only shows 480i. There are 20+ scan lines before the top of the picture, and another 20+ scan lines after the bottome of the picture. These non-visible scan lines are used to carry additional information(such as closed captioning), as well as to give the video beam time to move from the bottom of the picture tube back to the top.
and that's my grip.
If they had made the disk slightly larger, say midway between a Laserdisk and a CD(about 8 inches diameter) they would have had the capacity to do so. By doing so, we wouldn't now be stuck in the scenerio of "nothing to watch on HDTV, so why buy it?". HDTV will basically sell itself, but only if you can see how much better the picture is.
It also saves the problem of people not upgrading because the current system is good enough. An excellent example of this happening is SVHS(Super VHS). The SVHS decks provide laser disk quality on a video tape, while maintaining the ability to play/record the original VHS tapes. In spite of the obvious increase in picture quality (about double the resolution), very few SVHS decks were sold.
480P is SDTV(Standard Definition), not HDTV(High Definition).
Divx is not ecologically friendly. The concept of a disposable movies incased in plastic is definitely not PC :-)
That's my major grip with DVD. DVD does look OK when viewed on current low-quality TVs, but does not buy you anything with an HDTV set. It would have been a seriously major boost to the acceptance of HDTV if you could purchase movies with HDTV quality.
For a non-interlaced picture (flicker-free games) you can use 320x240 or even 640x240(these are for NTSC, PAL is slightly higher in the resolution at the expense of picture update frequency). The current playstation also supports 640x480 images. the game Einhander has a graphics library composed of pictures at this resolution.
The specs for the Playstation 2 indicate that it will suport HDTV(wide screen gaming!!!) as well as computer monitors. However, it does not dictate what resolutions it will support.
Visit my homepage for the OS/2 version of Stella, or the Stella Homepage for version for Linux, Mac, Amiga, and many other operating systems(even winblows).
Sorry, but I'm not familiar with X11. As my signature should tipped you off, I'm an OS/2 user and thus am familiar with a very consistent user interface! This site is "News for Nerds", not "News for Linux users"...
The fact that it's made by microsoft is extremely relevant because their business practices are questionable.
because of the way they do business, I(and many others) elect not to buy ANY of their software, even if it might be good.
I'd seriously have to disagree with Marc's statement of "I can't say I really blame manufacturers for..." not giving a refund. After all, if the manufacturers would sell us what we ask for, then they'd never be in this predicament. It's not like they don't let you choose a different monitor, video card, etc. The OS should be no different!
I have had problems with some MP3's under OS/2. There's a utility (for OS/2) called UNCOOK that fixed the problem. I suspect some incoding software puts bogus info in the MP3 file and UNCOOK takes it out.
I tracked down a few versions:
OS/2
Unix/Linux
DOS
winblows
I've noticed most MP3's use about 1MB per minute of music. 650MB on the CDR provides enough room for almost 11 hours of music.
Sure you might be swapping CD's, but not all that often :-)