Perhaps vi does have more power. But, 99.9% of the time I don't need that power. What is nice is being able to easily select any text(parts of lines usually) in a file and do a selection-specific search and replace.
He probably reacts that way because even kernel hackers use GUIs.
Unless I have to conduct all of my business over SSH, I *always* do everything I can in TextEdit(Mac OS X). If I need to compile I'll open a Terminal window, but that's about all I use it for, aside from working with permissions.
Text-editing via a command-line, if there's any decent alternative, is more frustration than it's worth.
Legal issues aside, the difference is that Internet Explorer would be much easier to kill. Effectively prohibit Microsoft from selling it and there will be no new versions, nor further official production of existing versions.
How do you stop an open source project where several thousand people each have the complete code and can not only continue to distribute it, but can further its development?
That said, you can easily install XFree86 and the window manager of your choice in OS X. The most commonly used window manager is probably OrborusX(or something like that). Both XFree86 and this WM come as easily installed double-click packages.
You can also run the X server rootless, so that your X Windows apps appear right alongside your OS X apps.
Oh, I understand the cost issue. I was just trying to make the point that if you could build something that would run OS X, you'd likely also get the ability to run Linux "for free".
I agree with pretty much everything you've said, though I think some kind of heap removable media(CD/DVD) is probably a good idea.
The main problems I see are:
1. Autonomy. The tablet has to be useful on its own for extended periods of time.
2. Software. If this isn't running a full-fledged desktop OS, and assuming a beefed up PalmOS type system won't work, we'd essentially be creating a new platform.
I'm thinking the optimal combination of hardware is:
8-10" LCD 1.8" hard drive System RAM RAM disk, to avoid excessive hard drive spinning. USB/Firewire/Ethernet Some kind of ARM or PPC processor.
An optical drive probably wouldn't fit. This would allow the unit to be thinner, though. I'd put most of the guts below the LCD(as seen when the display is in "portrait" mode). It's not easy to write on the very last line of a notebook, so this would probably be a good step for ergonomics. A thick border to hang onto would also allow for spreading the internals out and keeping them out from under the heat-sensitive LCD.
I'm of the opinion that Apple either won't do a tablet, or at least such a product wouldn't last long. Why?
In order to get people to enjoy using a computer it either has to be reasonably adaptable to their needs, or very tightly targeted.
The iPod is a perfect demonstration of the latter. It's a killer MP3 player. It has a few extras, but those are just icing on the cake, rather than something people expect of it. Thus every new feature is a treat, rather than an obligation. The iPod is also quite successful.
The problem with a tablet is that it has a relatively big color screen and versatile input. I expect to be able to do pretty much anything I can do on my iMac on an iTablet. I expect a tablet to be fully functional without depending on a desktop for anything(and for that matter, I don't want a concept where removing the tablet from the equation cripples my desktop).
But this means that a tablet has to have pretty much everything a compact, yet fully-featured(like the iBook, rather than one that requires a "docking station") laptop. Double hinged screen or not, the "tablet" then becomes cumbersome. My Mead 70 page notebook doesn't weigh nearly as much as even the lightest laptop.
The tablet concept is something that wants to be too many things at one time. It either has to wait for technology to become light and thin enough to make truly lightweight, non-crippled laptops, or it has to be more specifically targeted as a middle ground between the laptop and PDA. Right now it's just too close to being a laptop with a fancy screen to distinguish itself from that already-saturated market.
Re:What about Apple LCDs?
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 2
I believe that wa in reference to Apple's line of stand-alone monitors, which are all LCDs at this time.
Actually, I think there's quite a bit of principle in standing up to the starched-suit, Windows-devoted, businessmen hordes who typically govern K-12 schools' buying decisions and recommending Macs.
Kids don't need to help Bill Gates rule the world, and they don't need to become experts on Word features they'll never use that'll be obselete after MS' next release.
They need creativity and problem-solving skills. They need basic tools that are a means to an end, rather than an end. Apple provides such tools and as such their computers are the right choice.
Apple has in the recent past not been making huge hardware announcements at MacWorld expos. Instead, they've been focusing on software. Right now it seems Apple is working on improvements under the hood(journaling filesystem, for instance). These aren't the kinds of features that whip MacWorld crowds into a frenzy.
Right now Apple uses processors from IBM and Motorola. It isn't that hard to see the relationship just reversed if Motorola can't deliver a higher performance processor than IBM. IBM supplying the power, and Motorola working on low power, low heat 64 and 32-bit processors for the PowerBooks and all of the consumer machines.
If IBM flawlessly integrates Altivec compatibility with VMX, and given that Motorola's got quite a bit of Altivec experience, Apple could get the technology into the whole line.
I believe BeOS 5 Persona Edition would run on pre-G3 PowerMacs, but after that it went x86-exclusive. Might be a good way to revive an old Mac, though. I'm sure someone else here will or has posted the link to the free download.
I probably should have clarified. I was referring to two year schools. Java is bigger at four year schools, where there's time to introduce students to more than one language in detail.
Well, standardization is a huge factor, at least where I am, but there are other factors too. Certainly they look at what the AP course is using, and that's why Java is hesitantly being brought into the curriculum.
However, the Java course will be CSC 228, while the intro(115) will continue using C++. Why they're incorporating Java as a second-year course because maybe 2% of their students are coming in having taken the AP course is beyond me.
This move is clearly designed to help C# and.NET get into classrooms. Currently C++ is used by many schools because the faculty wanted to teach something that had been "standardized". They don't want to teach a language that's going to be obsolete in a year. This is particularly true at two year schools, where there isn't time to teach multiple languages, and the students are intending to go straight into the job market.
Of course, then these same schools go ahead and use Visual C++, so standards go right out the window. But the buzzword remains powerful in their purchasing decisions. For this very reason, Java is only being hesitantly adopted.
If Microsoft can get C# standardized, they won't have to use the standard. They just need it for marketing.
If anything, Intel would have released it sooner, to build up OEM demand for it, and thus allies to help them argue against an injunction. As it is, Intel will have a hard time getting people to care, when OEMs are happy to continue using Xeons.
In my own experience, I've experienced the opposite. I was pretty good at procedural programming, but the OO stuff always seemed rather intimidating.
Then a friend twisted my arm and made me learn Python, and it wasn't necessarily that Python does OO well, but that it makes it really quick and easy to experiment. Doing so gave me sufficient understanding to go back into Perl and figure out how packages and modules and such work.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps vi does have more power. But, 99.9% of the time I don't need that power. What is nice is being able to easily select any text(parts of lines usually) in a file and do a selection-specific search and replace.
It's a matter of preference.
He probably reacts that way because even kernel hackers use GUIs.
Unless I have to conduct all of my business over SSH, I *always* do everything I can in TextEdit(Mac OS X). If I need to compile I'll open a Terminal window, but that's about all I use it for, aside from working with permissions.
Text-editing via a command-line, if there's any decent alternative, is more frustration than it's worth.
You have to use computers people actually want to look at. There's a reasn PC cases get hidden under desks.
Well, they have to support FreeBSD, or they wouldn't be able to write software for their own webservers.
Legal issues aside, the difference is that Internet Explorer would be much easier to kill. Effectively prohibit Microsoft from selling it and there will be no new versions, nor further official production of existing versions.
How do you stop an open source project where several thousand people each have the complete code and can not only continue to distribute it, but can further its development?
A Powerbook 540c that meets the base requirements for OS7 doesn't count. :-)
Let's see... 10% faster...
;-)
So how long would it take to make up the weeks spent getting the server configured just right, as opposed to having it work out of the box?
I actually like Linux, but Linux on a Mac server seems like a poor investment.
That said, you can easily install XFree86 and the window manager of your choice in OS X. The most commonly used window manager is probably OrborusX(or something like that). Both XFree86 and this WM come as easily installed double-click packages.
You can also run the X server rootless, so that your X Windows apps appear right alongside your OS X apps.
Oh, I understand the cost issue. I was just trying to make the point that if you could build something that would run OS X, you'd likely also get the ability to run Linux "for free".
One doesn't rule out the other. Witness Macs that dual-boot OS9/X and Linux.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said, though I think some kind of heap removable media(CD/DVD) is probably a good idea.
The main problems I see are:
1. Autonomy. The tablet has to be useful on its own for extended periods of time.
2. Software. If this isn't running a full-fledged desktop OS, and assuming a beefed up PalmOS type system won't work, we'd essentially be creating a new platform.
I'm thinking the optimal combination of hardware is:
8-10" LCD
1.8" hard drive
System RAM
RAM disk, to avoid excessive hard drive spinning.
USB/Firewire/Ethernet
Some kind of ARM or PPC processor.
An optical drive probably wouldn't fit. This would allow the unit to be thinner, though. I'd put most of the guts below the LCD(as seen when the display is in "portrait" mode). It's not easy to write on the very last line of a notebook, so this would probably be a good step for ergonomics. A thick border to hang onto would also allow for spreading the internals out and keeping them out from under the heat-sensitive LCD.
And vastly better dialogue.
I'm of the opinion that Apple either won't do a tablet, or at least such a product wouldn't last long. Why?
In order to get people to enjoy using a computer it either has to be reasonably adaptable to their needs, or very tightly targeted.
The iPod is a perfect demonstration of the latter. It's a killer MP3 player. It has a few extras, but those are just icing on the cake, rather than something people expect of it. Thus every new feature is a treat, rather than an obligation. The iPod is also quite successful.
The problem with a tablet is that it has a relatively big color screen and versatile input. I expect to be able to do pretty much anything I can do on my iMac on an iTablet. I expect a tablet to be fully functional without depending on a desktop for anything(and for that matter, I don't want a concept where removing the tablet from the equation cripples my desktop).
But this means that a tablet has to have pretty much everything a compact, yet fully-featured(like the iBook, rather than one that requires a "docking station") laptop. Double hinged screen or not, the "tablet" then becomes cumbersome. My Mead 70 page notebook doesn't weigh nearly as much as even the lightest laptop.
The tablet concept is something that wants to be too many things at one time. It either has to wait for technology to become light and thin enough to make truly lightweight, non-crippled laptops, or it has to be more specifically targeted as a middle ground between the laptop and PDA. Right now it's just too close to being a laptop with a fancy screen to distinguish itself from that already-saturated market.
I believe that wa in reference to Apple's line of stand-alone monitors, which are all LCDs at this time.
Actually, I think there's quite a bit of principle in standing up to the starched-suit, Windows-devoted, businessmen hordes who typically govern K-12 schools' buying decisions and recommending Macs.
Kids don't need to help Bill Gates rule the world, and they don't need to become experts on Word features they'll never use that'll be obselete after MS' next release.
They need creativity and problem-solving skills. They need basic tools that are a means to an end, rather than an end. Apple provides such tools and as such their computers are the right choice.
Apple has in the recent past not been making huge hardware announcements at MacWorld expos. Instead, they've been focusing on software. Right now it seems Apple is working on improvements under the hood(journaling filesystem, for instance). These aren't the kinds of features that whip MacWorld crowds into a frenzy.
Ever tried to dismantle an iBook? ;-)
Yes. The PowerPC was the result of the so-called "AIM"(Apple, IBM, Motorola) alliance.
... that it'll be one or the other?
Right now Apple uses processors from IBM and Motorola. It isn't that hard to see the relationship just reversed if Motorola can't deliver a higher performance processor than IBM. IBM supplying the power, and Motorola working on low power, low heat 64 and 32-bit processors for the PowerBooks and all of the consumer machines.
If IBM flawlessly integrates Altivec compatibility with VMX, and given that Motorola's got quite a bit of Altivec experience, Apple could get the technology into the whole line.
I believe BeOS 5 Persona Edition would run on pre-G3 PowerMacs, but after that it went x86-exclusive. Might be a good way to revive an old Mac, though. I'm sure someone else here will or has posted the link to the free download.
I probably should have clarified. I was referring to two year schools. Java is bigger at four year schools, where there's time to introduce students to more than one language in detail.
Well, standardization is a huge factor, at least where I am, but there are other factors too. Certainly they look at what the AP course is using, and that's why Java is hesitantly being brought into the curriculum.
However, the Java course will be CSC 228, while the intro(115) will continue using C++. Why they're incorporating Java as a second-year course because maybe 2% of their students are coming in having taken the AP course is beyond me.
This move is clearly designed to help C# and .NET get into classrooms. Currently C++ is used by many schools because the faculty wanted to teach something that had been "standardized". They don't want to teach a language that's going to be obsolete in a year. This is particularly true at two year schools, where there isn't time to teach multiple languages, and the students are intending to go straight into the job market.
Of course, then these same schools go ahead and use Visual C++, so standards go right out the window. But the buzzword remains powerful in their purchasing decisions. For this very reason, Java is only being hesitantly adopted.
If Microsoft can get C# standardized, they won't have to use the standard. They just need it for marketing.
If anything, Intel would have released it sooner, to build up OEM demand for it, and thus allies to help them argue against an injunction. As it is, Intel will have a hard time getting people to care, when OEMs are happy to continue using Xeons.
In my own experience, I've experienced the opposite. I was pretty good at procedural programming, but the OO stuff always seemed rather intimidating.
Then a friend twisted my arm and made me learn Python, and it wasn't necessarily that Python does OO well, but that it makes it really quick and easy to experiment. Doing so gave me sufficient understanding to go back into Perl and figure out how packages and modules and such work.