It's in there, there are three separate ways to browse normally
Do you actually know what those ways are? Have you used the version of Nautilus in question? Or are you just repeating what you read in that "rebuttal" argument somewhere up there?
I haven't used the thing. What I can say is that the negative review has the "ring of truth" - and if there is options to fix the interface they don't seem to be implemented in the obvious way (ie. a clear option like a "Open folders in separate windows" checkbox) - unless the reviewer is just outright lying (which I thoroughly, thoroughly doubt).
About half the posts on this story are of this same variety - everyone wants to jump on some story or that explains away the problems this guy mentions. The fact is, the guy had problems getting the interface to work in a reasonable way.
This is a minor problem in a way, but it's the kind of problem that suggests the need of a serious overhaul. Things like "how you browse files" should be tested into the ground by a diverse variety of people. Surely many would have had the same concerns as this writer and something good could have been done that would have worked around the problem better and more clearly.
My strong suspicion is that these concerns did come up in testing, and they were handwaved away precisely the way most of the posters here have done: "Oh, well you could have done this" or "Who cares about that little thing?"
It's this defensive attitude towards problems that ends up in software that's unusable, and problems that take far too long to be fixed.
We've actually got a lot of fun out of Pacman Vs - and I think there's some entertaining connectivity games to be made. But the GameCube doesn't have enough titles right now, and making high-quality/small-audience titles like these 2 is sort of a kick in the shin.
Four Swords may have required this staggering amount of hardware as part of the game - but it should have been optional on FF:CC.
I'm sure some people have that hardware (or know enough people with GameBoys) - but lots of us don't, and still want to play games with friends that don't have GBA's.
If you're just hyping a non-existent product, why limit yourself to such boring specs? If you've already given up your link to reality by marketing something that doesn't and won't exist, why not at least make your fantasy exciting?
Geforce FX 5700 Ultra? Why not "32GB 12-Way Tungstamech Neurogrouts bring you entertainment straight out of the Matrix"? Athlon XP? Why not "Vast arrays of processors shifting in and out of different dimensions deliver impossible computing power while tearing at the fabric of space-time"? Online game rentals? Why not "Direct stimulation of your brain's pleasure centers and direct fine-grained control of all matter in the universe"?
I believe Richard Garriott (as Lord British) did work on AutoDuel (back in the mid-80's I think) which was an RPG with a similar theme. If I remember right, it specifically credited Car Wars as an inspiration.
So I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same ideas come through here.
NCSoft is building up quite a stable of MMORPGS. While it remains to be seen how many of them are going to be high quality, I think should consider an "all-access" pass (like Sony, only with different games to play). I can see players being really into Lineage II or City of Heroes - but also enjoying an occasional car pileup.
The market will only support so many monthly subscriptions at once - but they could ensure themselves a bigger slice of that pie by offering a bit of a buffet.
Marketing is certainly important, but it can't resurrect bad hardware. Sega marketed the 32X and Sega CD valiantly - but they couldn't keep people from discovering the games sucked. The Saturn was OK, and the DreamCast was good - but by then nobody trusted Sega to stick with a platform for more than a few minutes.
There's certainly a lot of factors here - mostly I was just trying to make the point that it isn't about gamers following games, it's about games following a successful (or predicted to be successful) console.
Zeliard was from Sierra in around 1991 I believe (not 1983) - and it really is a great game. From what I remember, there wasn't a lot of tricks to getting to the last level (just make sure you've explored every section again) - and I never found the Fairy Flame Sword that in-game characters are always whining about. I never understood why this game never got noticed - it was as fun as any Zelda game I've played.
Anywho, if you really want to know how to get through it, there's a walkthrough at GameFaqs.
There's better ways around the difficulty problem than quicksave. For example, the extremely challenging shooter Ikaruga lets you play any level section you want from the main menu. You also have the option of playing it in slow-mo to work out technique, or watching a master play through the level.
Ikaruga gives you all the joy of getting better at the game, without replaying sections you can get through. The design is centered around this, actually - and it's pretty satisfying.
Systems with better games get purchased. This is true. But this is not causation.
The root is that good games are developed for good hardware that's released at the right time with the right marketing effort. Developers create launch titles for systems that they think will do well (or that pay them). At launch, consumers buy systems that have good hardware.
The NGage wasn't dead because it didn't have game support - it didn't have game support because it was a horrible platform.
Conversely, you can't tell me that the PS2 had good games at launch - and yet it sold like hot cakes. Why? Because it was the right hardware at the right time - with the right marketing accompanying that hardware.
As a console matures, the two re-inforce each other. Good games get made for successful hardware, and those quality games in turn make that hardware more successful. There are anomalies here - like Nintendo's guaranteed quality first-party titles or Street Fighter II selling SNES's - but in general they hide the real truth.
The PSP/DS fight will be fought mostly on hardware. The DS should have a guaranteed lead going in in terms of software support (Metroid, Zelda, Mario...) - but I think it'll squander that marginal advantage by being silly hardware.
The much more conventional PSP will end up being the system that's more successful and has better games - but the latter doesn't cause the former. Both will be caused by it being a better platform.
I'm actually pretty good with El Gimpo (though I'm a programmer like you), but the interface still boils my bum. No matter what you do, you have 700 windows open by the time you're done. If you're doing other stuff with the computer at the same time or working on a few images, you end up with a useless soup. And, if you're like me, you'll end up spending way too much time hunting through the endless right-click menus (often for the same 4 or 5 options).
Speaking of which, useless novelty crap has the same rank in the right-click hierarchy as bread and butter functions (there's probably hotkeys or some configuration crap I can do to fix this - but I'm ranting here). Beginning users are helplessly confused by the selection/anchoring setup. The Channels/Paths thing is just messed up, and I bet most users just steer clear of the whole thing and just implement what they can with layers and fudging. Lots of the subtools lack the features that would be required to make them useful, and are far too customizable in only the ways I couldn't care less about. Or are just pretty much useless novelty doodads.
Still, I use it because it's a free way to do some common picture operations (like fudging color) on my work computer.
You can't really complain too much about a free product - but you can certainly wish it had had a usable (and here I mean more than "it's possible to use") interface.
I like the large selection of races/classes. I think there's some interesting possibilities there - although I'm going to try to get through it with my Runeloremaster before I play with any other stuff (it won't be easy, but it'll be worth it!). I like the streamlined game mechanics. The interface is very well thought out - and loads of variety.
Dungeon Siege distilled the modern CRPG into its purest, simplest, lamest form yet. Its like Diablo without as much clicking and many fewer stats and combinations.
Now it looks like their going to gradually add on the kind of muck they took off. I would have preferred they went the other way. Screw all the stats except Level. No skills, nothing. Kind of like Gauntlet, only your player moves and attacks on his own if you don't touch anything. It could be both a game and a screensaver.
...are what has kept the console industry alive since the mid 80's.
The Great Videogame Crash was caused by the fact that anyone with a few bucks could publish a horrible game in a box that looked like all the others. People got tired of sifting through the endless, repetitive crap.
The "Nintendo Seal of Quality" (and the corresponding tech that prevented any old Joe from making an NES cart) literally saved the industry - first by raising the quality bar, and second by providing a source of income that allowed consoles to be sold cheap. Now that there is a more established gaming media, that first purpose is largely redundant. The second, though, has become the industry's bread and butter.
Could a licensing scheme be arranged in such a way as to preserve this cut, and still allow independent entrants?
I think it's clear that the vendors don't think so. We'll see more initiatives like the XBox independent program - but they won't be what you or I want (I'd love to port Jumpman to the GBA, but it's such a hassle). Instead, they'll provide programs designed to create more software that fits in their business model and provides the same income.
MS doesn't want free or even "$10-ultra-value" titles for the XBox. It wants more sprawling, mass-market $50 ones that it'll take its standard cut on. Independents will have access to the hardware to exactly the extent that they can provide such titles.
Many classic C64 games used the keyboard - either for all or some gameplay functions. Even Jumpman (the best game ever - try my free remake!) used the keyboard during the menu screens (and to select a run-speed).
Are they going to include a keyboard? If not, are they going to try to rewrite parts of these games? Or are they going to limit this to really bad titles like "California Games" and whatever else they can find that doesn't use the keyboard?
Perhaps they can munge together necessary functionality by having a few extra buttons that function as different keyboard keys according to the game being played?
If these bulb really lasts longer than 2000 hours...well great but I wish consumer reports or someone would actually do a conclusive test and not just rely on ancedote or vague impressions.
Looking back at your original problem, you probably aren't going to get even the rated bulb hours - as you'll be running the things for long periods (getting them too hot).
I sort of over-freaked at the idea of using a homebrewed lighting setup in a home theatre (where I still think it would be a bad idea) - but it might be worth a try here.
It used to be the LCD overhead panels were really cheap on EBay (and would have worked great here) - but that was a few years ago when they were being replaced with small projectors. I don't think they're going to be cheap now unless you know someone at a school or some such.
My reply wasn't meant to be caustic. And really I don't think it was. I think he had some facts wrong, so I thought he should do some more research - and not rule out off-the-shelf solutions based on the misconception that bulbs lasted hundreds of hours. Imagine reading that sentence in a quizzical sort of voice, not an insulting one.
Sometimes it's easy to read emotion into typing that wasn't intended to be there.
Also, I'm not going to work all my arguments around not wanting to offend those who may have good reason to do X random thing. For 99% of people, watching more than 4 hours of TV a day is a really bad idea and constitutes more TV than needs to be budgeted for.
As to the signal ratio, I provided on-topic information in my post (though I think I over-stated the standard industry bulb-life, 3000hr is still pretty rare it seems).
As to the question of using some other kind of bulb, I figured it was doable but would result in a horrible picture. While this might be acceptable in his application, he had also suggested that this might be an applicable solution for a home theatre - and I just wanted to suggest why it wouldn't work well (uneven lighting) and stress that I think this will lead to a very bad picture.
I'm sorry I offended you with the post - I certainly didn't intend it to be the flame you read it as.
I'd love to hear an example of a projector with replacement bulbs that cost less than $200
The lamp for my Epson S1 (which cost $900) is $199 at FocusedTechnology. This lamp is rated for 2000 hours, but reports I've heard suggest this is conservative - and that the bulb will last longer if well ventilated. I wouldn't buy a Dell, although I haven't looked a bunch at their offerings.
So, explain why I can't use a cheaper light source that is just as bright if I don't need it necessarily to fit into a itty bitty plastic case?
It's not just about brightness, it's about even-ness, temperature, and - as you suggest - size. Some projectors do use halogen bulbs, but they typically have very short lifetimes (~100 hours, I think). Most consumer projectors use metal halide bulbs.
With correct ventilation, and with no size restriction, you may well be able to use a different kind of lamp. Again, I think what you'll be unable to find is a lamp that can light evenly enough to create a quality picture.
virtually every projector under the sun measures bulb life in "hundreds of hours"
Most new consumer projectors will have bulb lives of around 3000 hours. Many also feature low pressure bulbs that can be replaced for around $200. Are you sure you've researched this at all?
This also has to do with the home theater question, because if you watch a lot of movies or TV shows, you're going to find youself using a bulb or two each year and that's not cheap.
Again, this is overstated. If you used your projector for 4 hours a day (and I don't know anyone who would do this), one bulb would last about two years in most new consumer projectors.
If you're the kind of person who watches more than 4 hours of TV a day, I indeed wouldn't recommend a projector. I'd recommend surgery.
Can they be modified to work with other light sources (given that overhead projector bulbs are no bargain either)
There's a reason projectors (overhead or video) use fancy bulbs. They need lots of brightness and even lighting. There's probably lots of options available if you're willing to have a horrible picture - but I think I'd prefer to spend $100 a year on bulbs (assuming 4hr/day use).
Like a Epson Powerlite S1 or an Infocus X1. The picture will be infinitely better than what you'd get from a homebrew. Don't even consider the homebrew thing. Really. I've seen a few (based on CRT's or overhead projectors and LCD panels) and they are really poor.
Despite what videophile reviewers or salespeople will say, these entry-level projectors create a very impressive picture under any reasonable lighting conditions. And if you can't make your room reasonably dark (ie. reading should be uncomfortable) then you shouldn't be getting a projector.
I have an Epson Powerlite S1 ($900 US) in my basement theatre. Nobody that has seen it has been anything other than extremely impressed with the picture - even my brother who has a $12000 projector. Admittedly the picture isn't perfect in a videophile sense (and there's no optical zoom, so you'll want to measure things out) - but it is really very good (and as big as my wall would allow - about 11' diagonal). I'm projecting onto matte white paint. Again, it works just fine. I use my computer in there, play GameCube, watch movies - it's just really great.
Unless you're looking to spend a fair bit more than $900, you won't get something nearly as good as one of these two. You could try used, but I doubt you'll find as good a deal.
I did my taxes by hand this year, and then via a web-preparation thingee. I'm a smart guy, and a programmer, and I found the forms easy to fill out.
I got $1200 more using the program than I did filling out the forms manually. I think it made a lot of this difference by transferring some elegible deductions from my wife's return to mine (as her part of the return actually got smaller). Perhaps I should have known which I could do this with, but I didn't.
Add to this that the total time to use the program was about 15 minutes, whereas getting the forms done manually took about 2 hours - and I think I'll go straight to the $20 option next year.
Unless you're having problems with your current phones, I'd keep them. It's almost certain you'll have some downtime during the switchover, and a few things to iron out during the startup.
I've talked to a few people who've just moved to IP based phones. While they've ended up with a system that works, they had some problems setting up. And end users didn't like the new phones much - they didn't have as many speed dial buttons and certain features were awkward (well, probably just different).
If people are complaining all the time about the phones, then this cost is OK. But if people are happy with their phones, this is going to look like a big waste of time and money.
Wait a couple years, and you've got a good chance stuff will get cheaper, better, and your old phones will look worse.
I can find it pretty easily, but I know what I'm looking for. I know that it's there. I know that I'm going to have to look for the right link. Most people don't have these advantages. It's the same story at DivX.com, or even QuickTime. There's people that believe they're watching movies illegally because they aren't using QuickTime Pro.
But enough with them - Real has always been the worst offender here. And I'm not suggesting they're bad people, just stupid.
Real could have been a contender, but they couldn't decide on a business model - sell client or sell server - so decided to try selling both. You just can't do that - you have to get one, and use it to get the other.
Maybe have a sideline selling a fancy client, but your bread and butter is getting your client installed everywhere and then milking content providers. Look at the success of MacroMedia. They made it "dead easy" to install Flash, and it pretty much just isn't an issue for most users. Their good plan, and decent software, means they're making money.
Slashdot Mirror
It's in there, there are three separate ways to browse normally
Do you actually know what those ways are? Have you used the version of Nautilus in question? Or are you just repeating what you read in that "rebuttal" argument somewhere up there?
I haven't used the thing. What I can say is that the negative review has the "ring of truth" - and if there is options to fix the interface they don't seem to be implemented in the obvious way (ie. a clear option like a "Open folders in separate windows" checkbox) - unless the reviewer is just outright lying (which I thoroughly, thoroughly doubt).
About half the posts on this story are of this same variety - everyone wants to jump on some story or that explains away the problems this guy mentions. The fact is, the guy had problems getting the interface to work in a reasonable way.
This is a minor problem in a way, but it's the kind of problem that suggests the need of a serious overhaul. Things like "how you browse files" should be tested into the ground by a diverse variety of people. Surely many would have had the same concerns as this writer and something good could have been done that would have worked around the problem better and more clearly.
My strong suspicion is that these concerns did come up in testing, and they were handwaved away precisely the way most of the posters here have done: "Oh, well you could have done this" or "Who cares about that little thing?"
It's this defensive attitude towards problems that ends up in software that's unusable, and problems that take far too long to be fixed.
We've actually got a lot of fun out of Pacman Vs - and I think there's some entertaining connectivity games to be made. But the GameCube doesn't have enough titles right now, and making high-quality/small-audience titles like these 2 is sort of a kick in the shin.
Four Swords may have required this staggering amount of hardware as part of the game - but it should have been optional on FF:CC.
I'm sure some people have that hardware (or know enough people with GameBoys) - but lots of us don't, and still want to play games with friends that don't have GBA's.
If you're just hyping a non-existent product, why limit yourself to such boring specs? If you've already given up your link to reality by marketing something that doesn't and won't exist, why not at least make your fantasy exciting?
Geforce FX 5700 Ultra? Why not "32GB 12-Way Tungstamech Neurogrouts bring you entertainment straight out of the Matrix"? Athlon XP? Why not "Vast arrays of processors shifting in and out of different dimensions deliver impossible computing power while tearing at the fabric of space-time"? Online game rentals? Why not "Direct stimulation of your brain's pleasure centers and direct fine-grained control of all matter in the universe"?
I believe Richard Garriott (as Lord British) did work on AutoDuel (back in the mid-80's I think) which was an RPG with a similar theme. If I remember right, it specifically credited Car Wars as an inspiration.
So I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same ideas come through here.
NCSoft is building up quite a stable of MMORPGS. While it remains to be seen how many of them are going to be high quality, I think should consider an "all-access" pass (like Sony, only with different games to play). I can see players being really into Lineage II or City of Heroes - but also enjoying an occasional car pileup.
The market will only support so many monthly subscriptions at once - but they could ensure themselves a bigger slice of that pie by offering a bit of a buffet.
Marketing is certainly important, but it can't resurrect bad hardware. Sega marketed the 32X and Sega CD valiantly - but they couldn't keep people from discovering the games sucked. The Saturn was OK, and the DreamCast was good - but by then nobody trusted Sega to stick with a platform for more than a few minutes.
There's certainly a lot of factors here - mostly I was just trying to make the point that it isn't about gamers following games, it's about games following a successful (or predicted to be successful) console.
Zeliard was from Sierra in around 1991 I believe (not 1983) - and it really is a great game. From what I remember, there wasn't a lot of tricks to getting to the last level (just make sure you've explored every section again) - and I never found the Fairy Flame Sword that in-game characters are always whining about. I never understood why this game never got noticed - it was as fun as any Zelda game I've played.
Anywho, if you really want to know how to get through it, there's a walkthrough at GameFaqs.
There's better ways around the difficulty problem than quicksave. For example, the extremely challenging shooter Ikaruga lets you play any level section you want from the main menu. You also have the option of playing it in slow-mo to work out technique, or watching a master play through the level.
Ikaruga gives you all the joy of getting better at the game, without replaying sections you can get through. The design is centered around this, actually - and it's pretty satisfying.
Systems with better games get purchased. This is true. But this is not causation.
The root is that good games are developed for good hardware that's released at the right time with the right marketing effort. Developers create launch titles for systems that they think will do well (or that pay them). At launch, consumers buy systems that have good hardware.
The NGage wasn't dead because it didn't have game support - it didn't have game support because it was a horrible platform.
Conversely, you can't tell me that the PS2 had good games at launch - and yet it sold like hot cakes. Why? Because it was the right hardware at the right time - with the right marketing accompanying that hardware.
As a console matures, the two re-inforce each other. Good games get made for successful hardware, and those quality games in turn make that hardware more successful. There are anomalies here - like Nintendo's guaranteed quality first-party titles or Street Fighter II selling SNES's - but in general they hide the real truth.
The PSP/DS fight will be fought mostly on hardware. The DS should have a guaranteed lead going in in terms of software support (Metroid, Zelda, Mario...) - but I think it'll squander that marginal advantage by being silly hardware.
The much more conventional PSP will end up being the system that's more successful and has better games - but the latter doesn't cause the former. Both will be caused by it being a better platform.
Because I certainly don't have tabs. Hopefully the newer version will fix some other stuff too.
Thanks.
I'm actually pretty good with El Gimpo (though I'm a programmer like you), but the interface still boils my bum. No matter what you do, you have 700 windows open by the time you're done. If you're doing other stuff with the computer at the same time or working on a few images, you end up with a useless soup. And, if you're like me, you'll end up spending way too much time hunting through the endless right-click menus (often for the same 4 or 5 options).
Speaking of which, useless novelty crap has the same rank in the right-click hierarchy as bread and butter functions (there's probably hotkeys or some configuration crap I can do to fix this - but I'm ranting here). Beginning users are helplessly confused by the selection/anchoring setup. The Channels/Paths thing is just messed up, and I bet most users just steer clear of the whole thing and just implement what they can with layers and fudging. Lots of the subtools lack the features that would be required to make them useful, and are far too customizable in only the ways I couldn't care less about. Or are just pretty much useless novelty doodads.
Still, I use it because it's a free way to do some common picture operations (like fudging color) on my work computer.
You can't really complain too much about a free product - but you can certainly wish it had had a usable (and here I mean more than "it's possible to use") interface.
I like the large selection of races/classes. I think there's some interesting possibilities there - although I'm going to try to get through it with my Runeloremaster before I play with any other stuff (it won't be easy, but it'll be worth it!). I like the streamlined game mechanics. The interface is very well thought out - and loads of variety.
Thanks!
Dungeon Siege distilled the modern CRPG into its purest, simplest, lamest form yet. Its like Diablo without as much clicking and many fewer stats and combinations.
Now it looks like their going to gradually add on the kind of muck they took off. I would have preferred they went the other way. Screw all the stats except Level. No skills, nothing. Kind of like Gauntlet, only your player moves and attacks on his own if you don't touch anything. It could be both a game and a screensaver.
...are what has kept the console industry alive since the mid 80's.
The Great Videogame Crash was caused by the fact that anyone with a few bucks could publish a horrible game in a box that looked like all the others. People got tired of sifting through the endless, repetitive crap.
The "Nintendo Seal of Quality" (and the corresponding tech that prevented any old Joe from making an NES cart) literally saved the industry - first by raising the quality bar, and second by providing a source of income that allowed consoles to be sold cheap. Now that there is a more established gaming media, that first purpose is largely redundant. The second, though, has become the industry's bread and butter.
Could a licensing scheme be arranged in such a way as to preserve this cut, and still allow independent entrants?
I think it's clear that the vendors don't think so. We'll see more initiatives like the XBox independent program - but they won't be what you or I want (I'd love to port Jumpman to the GBA, but it's such a hassle). Instead, they'll provide programs designed to create more software that fits in their business model and provides the same income.
MS doesn't want free or even "$10-ultra-value" titles for the XBox. It wants more sprawling, mass-market $50 ones that it'll take its standard cut on. Independents will have access to the hardware to exactly the extent that they can provide such titles.
Many classic C64 games used the keyboard - either for all or some gameplay functions. Even Jumpman (the best game ever - try my free remake!) used the keyboard during the menu screens (and to select a run-speed).
Are they going to include a keyboard? If not, are they going to try to rewrite parts of these games? Or are they going to limit this to really bad titles like "California Games" and whatever else they can find that doesn't use the keyboard?
Perhaps they can munge together necessary functionality by having a few extra buttons that function as different keyboard keys according to the game being played?
But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 lbs. of extra metal?
I wonder if the F1 people have thought of this - they could just tow little trailers maybe.
It takes energy to accelerate mass, and 398 pounds is indeed significant.
If these bulb really lasts longer than 2000 hours...well great but I wish consumer reports or someone would actually do a conclusive test and not just rely on ancedote or vague impressions.
Looking back at your original problem, you probably aren't going to get even the rated bulb hours - as you'll be running the things for long periods (getting them too hot).
I sort of over-freaked at the idea of using a homebrewed lighting setup in a home theatre (where I still think it would be a bad idea) - but it might be worth a try here.
It used to be the LCD overhead panels were really cheap on EBay (and would have worked great here) - but that was a few years ago when they were being replaced with small projectors. I don't think they're going to be cheap now unless you know someone at a school or some such.
Too bad huge LCD's are so expensive..
My reply wasn't meant to be caustic. And really I don't think it was. I think he had some facts wrong, so I thought he should do some more research - and not rule out off-the-shelf solutions based on the misconception that bulbs lasted hundreds of hours. Imagine reading that sentence in a quizzical sort of voice, not an insulting one.
Sometimes it's easy to read emotion into typing that wasn't intended to be there.
Also, I'm not going to work all my arguments around not wanting to offend those who may have good reason to do X random thing. For 99% of people, watching more than 4 hours of TV a day is a really bad idea and constitutes more TV than needs to be budgeted for.
As to the signal ratio, I provided on-topic information in my post (though I think I over-stated the standard industry bulb-life, 3000hr is still pretty rare it seems).
As to the question of using some other kind of bulb, I figured it was doable but would result in a horrible picture. While this might be acceptable in his application, he had also suggested that this might be an applicable solution for a home theatre - and I just wanted to suggest why it wouldn't work well (uneven lighting) and stress that I think this will lead to a very bad picture.
I'm sorry I offended you with the post - I certainly didn't intend it to be the flame you read it as.
I'd love to hear an example of a projector with replacement bulbs that cost less than $200
The lamp for my Epson S1 (which cost $900) is $199 at FocusedTechnology. This lamp is rated for 2000 hours, but reports I've heard suggest this is conservative - and that the bulb will last longer if well ventilated. I wouldn't buy a Dell, although I haven't looked a bunch at their offerings.
So, explain why I can't use a cheaper light source that is just as bright if I don't need it necessarily to fit into a itty bitty plastic case?
It's not just about brightness, it's about even-ness, temperature, and - as you suggest - size. Some projectors do use halogen bulbs, but they typically have very short lifetimes (~100 hours, I think). Most consumer projectors use metal halide bulbs.
With correct ventilation, and with no size restriction, you may well be able to use a different kind of lamp. Again, I think what you'll be unable to find is a lamp that can light evenly enough to create a quality picture.
virtually every projector under the sun measures bulb life in "hundreds of hours"
Most new consumer projectors will have bulb lives of around 3000 hours. Many also feature low pressure bulbs that can be replaced for around $200. Are you sure you've researched this at all?
This also has to do with the home theater question, because if you watch a lot of movies or TV shows, you're going to find youself using a bulb or two each year and that's not cheap.
Again, this is overstated. If you used your projector for 4 hours a day (and I don't know anyone who would do this), one bulb would last about two years in most new consumer projectors.
If you're the kind of person who watches more than 4 hours of TV a day, I indeed wouldn't recommend a projector. I'd recommend surgery.
Can they be modified to work with other light sources (given that overhead projector bulbs are no bargain either)
There's a reason projectors (overhead or video) use fancy bulbs. They need lots of brightness and even lighting. There's probably lots of options available if you're willing to have a horrible picture - but I think I'd prefer to spend $100 a year on bulbs (assuming 4hr/day use).
Like a Epson Powerlite S1 or an Infocus X1. The picture will be infinitely better than what you'd get from a homebrew. Don't even consider the homebrew thing. Really. I've seen a few (based on CRT's or overhead projectors and LCD panels) and they are really poor.
Despite what videophile reviewers or salespeople will say, these entry-level projectors create a very impressive picture under any reasonable lighting conditions. And if you can't make your room reasonably dark (ie. reading should be uncomfortable) then you shouldn't be getting a projector.
I have an Epson Powerlite S1 ($900 US) in my basement theatre. Nobody that has seen it has been anything other than extremely impressed with the picture - even my brother who has a $12000 projector. Admittedly the picture isn't perfect in a videophile sense (and there's no optical zoom, so you'll want to measure things out) - but it is really very good (and as big as my wall would allow - about 11' diagonal). I'm projecting onto matte white paint. Again, it works just fine. I use my computer in there, play GameCube, watch movies - it's just really great.
Unless you're looking to spend a fair bit more than $900, you won't get something nearly as good as one of these two. You could try used, but I doubt you'll find as good a deal.
I did my taxes by hand this year, and then via a web-preparation thingee. I'm a smart guy, and a programmer, and I found the forms easy to fill out.
I got $1200 more using the program than I did filling out the forms manually. I think it made a lot of this difference by transferring some elegible deductions from my wife's return to mine (as her part of the return actually got smaller). Perhaps I should have known which I could do this with, but I didn't.
Add to this that the total time to use the program was about 15 minutes, whereas getting the forms done manually took about 2 hours - and I think I'll go straight to the $20 option next year.
Unless you're having problems with your current phones, I'd keep them. It's almost certain you'll have some downtime during the switchover, and a few things to iron out during the startup.
I've talked to a few people who've just moved to IP based phones. While they've ended up with a system that works, they had some problems setting up. And end users didn't like the new phones much - they didn't have as many speed dial buttons and certain features were awkward (well, probably just different).
If people are complaining all the time about the phones, then this cost is OK. But if people are happy with their phones, this is going to look like a big waste of time and money.
Wait a couple years, and you've got a good chance stuff will get cheaper, better, and your old phones will look worse.
I'd give the part to Connie Neilson.
I can find it pretty easily, but I know what I'm looking for. I know that it's there. I know that I'm going to have to look for the right link. Most people don't have these advantages. It's the same story at DivX.com, or even QuickTime. There's people that believe they're watching movies illegally because they aren't using QuickTime Pro.
But enough with them - Real has always been the worst offender here. And I'm not suggesting they're bad people, just stupid.
Real could have been a contender, but they couldn't decide on a business model - sell client or sell server - so decided to try selling both. You just can't do that - you have to get one, and use it to get the other.
Maybe have a sideline selling a fancy client, but your bread and butter is getting your client installed everywhere and then milking content providers. Look at the success of MacroMedia. They made it "dead easy" to install Flash, and it pretty much just isn't an issue for most users. Their good plan, and decent software, means they're making money.