I'm not sure where this "no parts with drivers" myth comes from, I see OS/2 drivers for way more stuff than there are linux drivers for, not just old stuff either. My Savage4 had OS/2 drivers, as did every network card I've ever owned.
Also, why bother switching OSs? I don't see how moving to a slow OS with too many memory leaks to run for more than a week at a time will help a program do more. I thought (maybe I'm crazy here...) that programs did what they were programmed to do. I really don't see how using dos, or windows, or OS/2, or Linux, or BeOS, or QNX, or Minix, or Unix, or *BSD, or freedows, or Gimi, or XGUI, or PC GEOS, or whatever OS you run this week will make a program designed to do something do more.
The anointed successor to MS-DOS for Intel 286- and 386-based micros; proof that IBM/Microsoft couldn't get it right the second time, either. Often called `Half-an-OS'. Mentioning it is usually good for a cheap laugh among hackers -- the design was so baroque, and the implementation of 1.x so bad, that 3 years after introduction you could still count the major apps shipping for it on the fingers of two hands -- in unary. The 2.x versions are said to have improved somewhat, and informed hackers now rate them superior to Microsoft Windows (an endorsement which, however, could easily be construed as damning with faint praise). See monstrosity, cretinous, second-system effect.
That's really sad. You do realize that we got to version 4 with OS/2, and version 3 was nothing to scoff at either. Windows 1.x sucked more ass than some sheiza porn star. the equivilant Linux kernel(first release, think "I'm linus, and I want people to try my new kernel.") was pretty bad too.
Basically, the moment MS got out of the project, OS/2 became great, if unappreciated.
Windows:a shell far worse than the DOS 6.2 DOSSHELL command.
Microsofts accessability tools are kind of useless(MouseKeys is good when I lose my mouse:)), and I don't think many disabled people would find them any better. Interfaces are going to have to change dramatically before the blind will be able to use a PC for surfing the internet or write E-mail. Translating a visual experience into a verbal one is difficult, and only someone who knew what they were doing already could use such a system.
It may not happen in my lifetime, but I think a connection directly into the mind will be the next big thing. I recall seeing experiments about creating a neurological UI a few years back, but I haven't heard about it since. Such an interface (if it was two way), could revolutionize computing, and perhaps even remove barriers in the world for disabled people.
Yes, some of your users will spend their time playing games, downloading MP3s, or reading Slashdot. But with all of the users on one machine these sort of abuses become fairly easy to spot. That way you can deal with those that misuse company time and resources without punishing those folks that need something other than "corporate approved" software for legitimate reasons.
That sounds nice in theory, but if you have 1000 users, and 250 of them are abusing their accounts (more like 750 in my case:( ), the ability to cut off those installs is still good to have.
Probably the same way they would have before September 11th, excersizing freedoms which allow them to create whatever they like.
Beautiful thing, a free country, where people can do something despite it being politically incorrect.
If SOME people got their way, all movies with references to the twin towers would be destroyed. That is so goddamn scary.
We are at war with afganistan. We have always been at war with afganistan. We are allies with britain. We have always been allies with britan.
If you understand the above paragraph, you understand why I think it's so scary. The mutability of the past is NOT fiction, but a goal that most people and governments seem to strive towards!:(
Why is everybody so willing to sell out another industry to microsoft, knowing the consequences, when one of the biggest perks of the X-Box to developers is cross-platform compatibility?
Wait for it, and the Xbox will die, and your favourite games will come to PC.
Wolfenstien 3d was one of the first games I ever played on a PC, and I think I was 7 at the time. I distinctly remember thinking "Wow, this is gory. I should really be affected by this.", but after the game ended, so did that thought.
Come to think of it, the only game which I've ever been affected by was GTA, and that was just because of the perspective, not the killing.
Killing in games just isn't realistic enough for me (or specifically, my subconscious) to care. I don't think this will change, even with Doom 3 coming out. My mind knows it's not real, and it always has.
Now, watching "unsolved mysteries" at 7 is another story. Those T.V shows seem to be specifically designed to invoke a "he might get me next!" type reaction, which is only amplified when seen through naive eyes.
It could be that the whole system is now optimized to take advantage of the better superscalar architecture in the p6 core, which would explain why it would run slower.
I just installed RedHat 7.1 on a 133, and it is a bit sluggish in KDE. Windows 95 on the same machine is a rocket compared to RedHat, but NT 4.0, which is a much fairer comparison(NT supposedly never crashes:)), is noticably slower than RedHat.
Mozilla is strangely perky when it's running though...odd.
If I was in charge, that's what I'd do in an instant. Alas, I'm not.
Linux on the corporate or even educational desktop done in this way would be fantastic. It removes power from the (often dangerous) user and places it into the hands of the sysadmin, which is good in an environment where everybody wants to put their copy of neo-napster or age of empires on their PCs. Removing their power to do such things before they sit down to use their PC is a good way to ensure productivity in both students and employees.
Re:Fast CPUs might be bad.
on
CPU Wars
·
· Score: 1
um......oops.
I was too busy ranting to notice. My point remains that we landed on the moon (without the shuttle:)) decades ago.
If the shuttle were to try to land on the moon, I'm pretty sure the result would be grizzly, to say the least.:)
Re:Fast CPUs might be bad.
on
CPU Wars
·
· Score: 1
I did. I did all that fun stuff using a 386. Web surfing was fine.
Besides, waiting for the huge slashdot pages to *load* will take pretty long on my dialup connection.:)
Re:Fast CPUs might be bad.
on
CPU Wars
·
· Score: 1
I find myself amazed, even as a software developer, that these days I can take pictures with my digital camera and send them to my mom using e-mail. I predicted this could be done a long time ago. But now I'm doing it I have to stop at moments and find myself simply stunned by the world we live in. We're ordering pizza's from our PCs using broadband network connections. My audio software (Propellerhead's Reason) can emulate a jampackked rack of synths and samplers, and the sound is generated in realtime. I don't have a digital camcorder, but if I owned one I'd spent my nights making my own movies. Picture this 10 years ago.
I *was* doing it 5 years ago, and it took way less hardware than you might expect. I was watching TV on my less than state-of-the-art 386sx with 4 megabytes of RAM, using a 15 year(at the time) old video capture card and a VCR. I took pictures using a camcorder which gave sharper images than digital cameras have been able to dream of until recently.
I wrote MIDIs using some anonymous shareware program and made them sound great using WinGroove, in realtime.
The best part of all this is that my computer was 6 years old at the time. I could have easily done any of these things when I first bought the computer, running Windows 3.1 in 1990. The video capture card existed, the internet existed, the sound card existed, and it would all run on a 386. Perhaps expensive for the time, but considering how many tens of thousands of dollars many have spent on upgrading to get these abilities over the years, it would have been money well spent.
In 10 years you'll say that you don't need the latest AMD XP 22000+ (16Ghz nominal) with 512GB of battery-backed-RAM and a semi-optical harddisc of 600TB... but then again you'll always be saying this. The only time I haven't said this was when my PC wasn't capable of doing what I told it to do. The 8088 was too slow for my needs. The 286 was close. The 386 was a rocket. It's all just extra layers of junk from there.
Believe it or not, for most peoples needs, a suprisingly old computer will do the job.
Re:Fast CPUs might be bad.
on
CPU Wars
·
· Score: 1
I'd just like to point out that gamers don't need the latest and greatest hardware either. How many games don't run just fine on an Athlon 700 with a Geforce 2?
The whole tech thing above a gigahert is just posturing and such, especially if it's for games. The only thing I could think of which would need as much processing power as we have would be either a server or some scientific problem, but even then, the space shuttle was landed on the moon with technology so feeble compared to todays, I'm not entirely sure of that.
I'm not complaining about this whole chip war driving down prices on the CPUs I actually want to buy though:)
I used konquerer on the 166 because netscape is just a hog when it comes to speed. I think that Gnome should run as well on your 200 as KDE did on my 166 just because you have the extra ram. Gnome seems to crave ram, so my k6-2 400 ran fine since it had 128 megs of the stuff.
I think the video card makes a huge difference on percieved speed as well. The ATI video card I'm using makes this humble 333 celron I'm using seem incredibly fast, even compared to my 550 under windows.
I was using RedHat 6.0, but I don't know what version of KDE that uses. KDE does have a slider in the control panel which lets you turn off eye candy to scale to slower processors.
Ram gets MORE EXPENSIVE as it gets older. Just try to pick up some SIMMS for a 386, 486, or even a classic pentium system. It's also really hard to find.
The thought that a person could be sued like that is really terrifying... I'm glad that at least some judges are finally realizing that the internet is a medium for two way communication by anyone, rather than a one way medium for rich people and corporatins, like TV.
I also thought about how if Microsoft were to sue Slashdot...they'd be raking in the ill-gotten gains!
Slashdot Mirror
OS/2 is outdated -- why still use it? Get with the times.
WINDOWS is outdated -- why still use it? Get with the times.
I'm not sure where this "no parts with drivers" myth comes from, I see OS/2 drivers for way more stuff than there are linux drivers for, not just old stuff either. My Savage4 had OS/2 drivers, as did every network card I've ever owned.
Also, why bother switching OSs? I don't see how moving to a slow OS with too many memory leaks to run for more than a week at a time will help a program do more. I thought (maybe I'm crazy here...) that programs did what they were programmed to do. I really don't see how using dos, or windows, or OS/2, or Linux, or BeOS, or QNX, or Minix, or Unix, or *BSD, or freedows, or Gimi, or XGUI, or PC GEOS, or whatever OS you run this week will make a program designed to do something do more.
The anointed successor to MS-DOS for Intel 286- and 386-based micros; proof that IBM/Microsoft couldn't get it right the second time, either. Often called `Half-an-OS'. Mentioning it is usually good for a cheap laugh among hackers -- the design was so baroque, and the implementation of 1.x so bad, that 3 years after introduction you could still count the major apps shipping for it on the fingers of two hands -- in unary. The 2.x versions are said to have improved somewhat, and informed hackers now rate them superior to Microsoft Windows (an endorsement which, however, could easily be construed as damning with faint praise). See monstrosity, cretinous, second-system effect.
That's really sad. You do realize that we got to version 4 with OS/2, and version 3 was nothing to scoff at either. Windows 1.x sucked more ass than some sheiza porn star. the equivilant Linux kernel(first release, think "I'm linus, and I want people to try my new kernel.") was pretty bad too.
Basically, the moment MS got out of the project, OS/2 became great, if unappreciated.
Windows:a shell far worse than the DOS 6.2 DOSSHELL command.
Slightly less voted for Bush, so thats a whole lot of fucked up people right there. :)
You start with the stupidity constant of duH, and divide any numbers which need to be altered into that constant.
duH / 270,000 = 0
it would seem that duH is equal to zero, but it is in fact infinity divided by itself.
I hope this helps in the future.
Microsofts accessability tools are kind of useless(MouseKeys is good when I lose my mouse :)), and I don't think many disabled people would find them any better. Interfaces are going to have to change dramatically before the blind will be able to use a PC for surfing the internet or write E-mail. Translating a visual experience into a verbal one is difficult, and only someone who knew what they were doing already could use such a system.
It may not happen in my lifetime, but I think a connection directly into the mind will be the next big thing. I recall seeing experiments about creating a neurological UI a few years back, but I haven't heard about it since. Such an interface (if it was two way), could revolutionize computing, and perhaps even remove barriers in the world for disabled people.
It doesn't stop me from being disgusted at how they want everybody to be legally obliged to think what they think.
Yes, some of your users will spend their time playing games, downloading MP3s, or reading Slashdot. But with all of the users on one machine these sort of abuses become fairly easy to spot. That way you can deal with those that misuse company time and resources without punishing those folks that need something other than "corporate approved" software for legitimate reasons.
:( ), the ability to cut off those installs is still good to have.
That sounds nice in theory, but if you have 1000 users, and 250 of them are abusing their accounts (more like 750 in my case
Probably the same way they would have before September 11th, excersizing freedoms which allow them to create whatever they like.
:(
Beautiful thing, a free country, where people can do something despite it being politically incorrect.
If SOME people got their way, all movies with references to the twin towers would be destroyed. That is so goddamn scary.
We are at war with afganistan. We have always been at war with afganistan. We are allies with britain. We have always been allies with britan.
If you understand the above paragraph, you understand why I think it's so scary. The mutability of the past is NOT fiction, but a goal that most people and governments seem to strive towards!
Wait for the PC port.
Why is everybody so willing to sell out another industry to microsoft, knowing the consequences, when one of the biggest perks of the X-Box to developers is cross-platform compatibility?
Wait for it, and the Xbox will die, and your favourite games will come to PC.
That was a shot of nostolgia! :)
Jetpack: From the days when men were men and the command line was as user freindly as it got.
I'm going to break out my old shareware CDs now.
Wolfenstien 3d was one of the first games I ever played on a PC, and I think I was 7 at the time. I distinctly remember thinking "Wow, this is gory. I should really be affected by this.", but after the game ended, so did that thought.
Come to think of it, the only game which I've ever been affected by was GTA, and that was just because of the perspective, not the killing.
Killing in games just isn't realistic enough for me (or specifically, my subconscious) to care. I don't think this will change, even with Doom 3 coming out. My mind knows it's not real, and it always has.
Now, watching "unsolved mysteries" at 7 is another story. Those T.V shows seem to be specifically designed to invoke a "he might get me next!" type reaction, which is only amplified when seen through naive eyes.
It could be that the whole system is now optimized to take advantage of the better superscalar architecture in the p6 core, which would explain why it would run slower.
I just installed RedHat 7.1 on a 133, and it is a bit sluggish in KDE. Windows 95 on the same machine is a rocket compared to RedHat, but NT 4.0, which is a much fairer comparison(NT supposedly never crashes :)), is noticably slower than RedHat.
Mozilla is strangely perky when it's running though...odd.
If I was in charge, that's what I'd do in an instant. Alas, I'm not.
Linux on the corporate or even educational desktop done in this way would be fantastic. It removes power from the (often dangerous) user and places it into the hands of the sysadmin, which is good in an environment where everybody wants to put their copy of neo-napster or age of empires on their PCs. Removing their power to do such things before they sit down to use their PC is a good way to ensure productivity in both students and employees.
um......oops.
:)) decades ago.
:)
I was too busy ranting to notice. My point remains that we landed on the moon (without the shuttle
If the shuttle were to try to land on the moon, I'm pretty sure the result would be grizzly, to say the least.
I did. I did all that fun stuff using a 386. Web surfing was fine.
:)
Besides, waiting for the huge slashdot pages to *load* will take pretty long on my dialup connection.
I find myself amazed, even as a software developer, that these days I can take pictures with my digital camera and send them to my mom using e-mail. I predicted this could be done a long time ago. But now I'm doing it I have to stop at moments and find myself simply stunned by the world we live in. We're ordering pizza's from our PCs using broadband network connections. My audio software (Propellerhead's Reason) can emulate a jampackked rack of synths and samplers, and the sound is generated in realtime. I don't have a digital camcorder, but if I owned one I'd spent my nights making my own movies. Picture this 10 years ago.
... but then again you'll always be saying this.
I *was* doing it 5 years ago, and it took way less hardware than you might expect. I was watching TV on my less than state-of-the-art 386sx with 4 megabytes of RAM, using a 15 year(at the time) old video capture card and a VCR. I took pictures using a camcorder which gave sharper images than digital cameras have been able to dream of until recently.
I wrote MIDIs using some anonymous shareware program and made them sound great using WinGroove, in realtime.
The best part of all this is that my computer was 6 years old at the time. I could have easily done any of these things when I first bought the computer, running Windows 3.1 in 1990. The video capture card existed, the internet existed, the sound card existed, and it would all run on a 386. Perhaps expensive for the time, but considering how many tens of thousands of dollars many have spent on upgrading to get these abilities over the years, it would have been money well spent.
In 10 years you'll say that you don't need the latest AMD XP 22000+ (16Ghz nominal) with 512GB of battery-backed-RAM and a semi-optical harddisc of 600TB
The only time I haven't said this was when my PC wasn't capable of doing what I told it to do. The 8088 was too slow for my needs. The 286 was close. The 386 was a rocket. It's all just extra layers of junk from there.
Believe it or not, for most peoples needs, a suprisingly old computer will do the job.
I'd just like to point out that gamers don't need the latest and greatest hardware either. How many games don't run just fine on an Athlon 700 with a Geforce 2?
:)
The whole tech thing above a gigahert is just posturing and such, especially if it's for games. The only thing I could think of which would need as much processing power as we have would be either a server or some scientific problem, but even then, the space shuttle was landed on the moon with technology so feeble compared to todays, I'm not entirely sure of that.
I'm not complaining about this whole chip war driving down prices on the CPUs I actually want to buy though
I used konquerer on the 166 because netscape is just a hog when it comes to speed. I think that Gnome should run as well on your 200 as KDE did on my 166 just because you have the extra ram. Gnome seems to crave ram, so my k6-2 400 ran fine since it had 128 megs of the stuff.
I think the video card makes a huge difference on percieved speed as well. The ATI video card I'm using makes this humble 333 celron I'm using seem incredibly fast, even compared to my 550 under windows.
I was using RedHat 6.0, but I don't know what version of KDE that uses. KDE does have a slider in the control panel which lets you turn off eye candy to scale to slower processors.
Ram gets MORE EXPENSIVE as it gets older. Just try to pick up some SIMMS for a 386, 486, or even a classic pentium system. It's also really hard to find.
That's odd. I found that KDE on a 166 with 32 megs of ram ran fine. GNOME ran like a pig on anything less than 64 megs though.
If you were going fot the logic loop, you messed it up. The two thoughts have to be intertwined, so that it can neither be true or untrue.
I tell the truth when I say I never tell the truth.
bad example, but you get the idea.
The thought that a person could be sued like that is really terrifying... I'm glad that at least some judges are finally realizing that the internet is a medium for two way communication by anyone, rather than a one way medium for rich people and corporatins, like TV.
I also thought about how if Microsoft were to sue Slashdot...they'd be raking in the ill-gotten gains!