It depends. I've got a laptop because I regularly visit clients, but I hardly ever use it on the road. Most of the time it sits in my office, connected to external KVM. I'd rather have more power than a really light machine. Luckily, the market caters to both types of use.
... do the Amiga folks even bother developing their own hardware? Wouldn't it be much simpler to use an existing platform, say (if you want a PowerPC), the Mac?
Since YDL will probably run on a Mac mini, you've now got your chance for only $500 (if you insist on a new machine). That said, yeah, it'd be cool to have an OS X-capable motherboard.
No, if you put a 10 W load on your PSU, it'll consume 15-20W due to transformation losses. At lower outputs, I suspect the afverage PSU isn't all that efficient.
It's not revolutionary, but it IS a big deal. The price for an OS X-capable computer has just been halved. And Mac users no longer stuck with the choice between an all-in-one or a workstation-class machine.
No, it's not a big deal. I've used the audio-in jack on my Macs for about 1 hour over the last 5 years, and I'm an audio freak. Prosumers are the only ones who'll be doing any audio recording, and for them a $ 30 iMic isn't going to be a showstopper. As with all the "they should have included 'blah'" comments: that's just the opposite of the point of this machine. If you want the kitchen sink, buy a PowerMac G5. Hint: it costs more than $500.
Re:Building is more fun than working at Maccers
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
So because it's fun to you, everyone should do it? Maybe I want to spend what little spare time I have doing something else. I'm immersed in technology for 8 hours a day, and that's quite enough. So I won't have that precious learning experience: so what? I can spend those hours doing something that doesn't have a store-bought alternative. Like helping out in my church, or tutoring neighborhood kids. This is called 'choice'. Most people choose to be clueless about building computers, because other things are more important to them. Guess what? They're right. If you want to build your own computers, go right ahead. But stop ranting that everyone should do it.
Unless they are seriously crippled, anyone can put together a computer in very little time. You mean, "anyone with a boatload of knowledge can put..." Not everyone has "personally built hundreds of computers at a former job". Putting a computer together, and knowing which components to get in the first place, is a decidedly nontrivial task. If you put your own systems together, more power to you. But only a tiny minority of computer users do this. The rest spend the extra $ 100 and buy a complete system instead.
With the correct tab-completion, and someone that doesn't rely entirely on "hunt and peck", a CLI can easily keep up in that situation. There are still a few tasks GUIs excel at, but this isn't one of them.
Rubbish. Finding a file in a list and then clicking it is faster than finding a file in a list and then typing its name. Tab-completion or not.
On Solaris, I didn't last a day before I had to use the CLI. On OS X the CLI really is an option. I've run OS X for two years now, and the only time I used the CLI was during an attempt to install X on an unsupported machine.
How would putting it on eBay be any different from the current process? And why would anyone pay billions for it, when there's no way in hell you'd be able to recoup that investment. No one would pay $10k for a domain name, so a new owner asking that much will only shoot himself in the foot.
Browsing at +1, the topic contains 181 comments in 3 threads. The majority (like, 175 comments) are in "What's up with the modified statue", discussing a frigging fig leaf. # of comments saying "Cool that we found this ancient star map", or otherwise even remotely related to astronomy: zero. (yeah, I know, "this is/., what else did you expect") So I'll say it: Cool that we found this ancient star map. Pity we don't have Hipparchus' complete works, though.
A command-line interface, on the other hand, is a guided conversation. Uh, no. A command line offers no clue as to possible commands, for example. You need a teacher to figure it out. "man ls" offers no help for the non-technical, and supposes you already know to use "ls" if you want to know about a folder's contents. 'Calm and soothing' aren't words I'd describe the CLI learning curve, either. "Hair-tearingly frustrating and arcane" would come closer - for me, at least. With a GUI, you have no syntax errors. Every option you have is visible. Teaching someone how to use a mouse, how to double-click etc. takes far less time and effort than teaching them how to use a CLI. And yes, I taught people aged 70+ how to use a computer. One guy was up and producing newsletters within hours of getting his first computer (a Mac). With a CLI-only computer, he wouldn't have progressed beyond ls -a by then.
What "vast momentum" would that be? Interface design has been stagnant since 1984. I've seen nothing that can replace the desktop. The two companies placed best to introduce such a replacement are either too busy refining their current projects (Apple) or are content to sit on their ass and copy other people's work (Microsoft).
You're right, As long as there is an easy way to... It depends heavily on what you're doing. rm *.jpg is fast, but removing half the JPEGs in a folder based on "I don't need this file any more" would be much faster in a GUI. I suspect there are at least as many tasks where a GUI is faster as where a CLI would have the advantage.
Winamp has sucked from day one. Its ability to use skins meant that none of the controls were standard Windows controls, including the bar at the top of the window, and the text. So it didn't scale with the Windows UI ("use large fonts" setting). It also looked horrible, with tiny controls and text. Windows Mediaplayer sucks even more, with moronic skins that only work half the time (try running the app full-screen: it'll revert to the default appearance).
Complaints that no one understands. I'm not surprised. You're part of the tiny minority that actually prefers a CLI environment. For that minority, GUIs can be hard to use, mostly because this group can't be bothered to learn to use the GUI/has CLI reflexes so stubborn no amount of GUI work is going to displace them.... I think they become harder for experienced people to use. I think that only goes for the tiny minority I mentioned before. Still, you're right in saying that there hasn't been much progress in UI design.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends. I've got a laptop because I regularly visit clients, but I hardly ever use it on the road. Most of the time it sits in my office, connected to external KVM. I'd rather have more power than a really light machine.
Luckily, the market caters to both types of use.
... do the Amiga folks even bother developing their own hardware? Wouldn't it be much simpler to use an existing platform, say (if you want a PowerPC), the Mac?
Since YDL will probably run on a Mac mini, you've now got your chance for only $500 (if you insist on a new machine).
That said, yeah, it'd be cool to have an OS X-capable motherboard.
No, if you put a 10 W load on your PSU, it'll consume 15-20W due to transformation losses. At lower outputs, I suspect the afverage PSU isn't all that efficient.
Right on. Also, electricity isn't free, and then there's the environmental impact of using all that power.
SkyCorp planned to launch PowerMacs into orbit as web servers. Then again, nothing has been heard from them since the announcement...
No, opening the mini does NOT void the warranty.
The Cubit designs are (rimshot) cubic, whereas the mini... isn't?
And next to the mini, the Cubit designs look cluttered and technofreaky.
It's not revolutionary, but it IS a big deal. The price for an OS X-capable computer has just been halved. And Mac users no longer stuck with the choice between an all-in-one or a workstation-class machine.
Because an optical drive won't fit in 96x96 mm.
No, it's not a big deal. I've used the audio-in jack on my Macs for about 1 hour over the last 5 years, and I'm an audio freak. Prosumers are the only ones who'll be doing any audio recording, and for them a $ 30 iMic isn't going to be a showstopper.
As with all the "they should have included 'blah'" comments: that's just the opposite of the point of this machine. If you want the kitchen sink, buy a PowerMac G5. Hint: it costs more than $500.
So because it's fun to you, everyone should do it? Maybe I want to spend what little spare time I have doing something else. I'm immersed in technology for 8 hours a day, and that's quite enough. So I won't have that precious learning experience: so what? I can spend those hours doing something that doesn't have a store-bought alternative. Like helping out in my church, or tutoring neighborhood kids.
This is called 'choice'. Most people choose to be clueless about building computers, because other things are more important to them. Guess what? They're right. If you want to build your own computers, go right ahead. But stop ranting that everyone should do it.
Unless they are seriously crippled, anyone can put together a computer in very little time.
You mean, "anyone with a boatload of knowledge can put..."
Not everyone has "personally built hundreds of computers at a former job".
Putting a computer together, and knowing which components to get in the first place, is a decidedly nontrivial task.
If you put your own systems together, more power to you. But only a tiny minority of computer users do this. The rest spend the extra $ 100 and buy a complete system instead.
With the correct tab-completion, and someone that doesn't rely entirely on "hunt and peck", a CLI can easily keep up in that situation. There are still a few tasks GUIs excel at, but this isn't one of them.
Rubbish. Finding a file in a list and then clicking it is faster than finding a file in a list and then typing its name. Tab-completion or not.
On Solaris, I didn't last a day before I had to use the CLI.
On OS X the CLI really is an option. I've run OS X for two years now, and the only time I used the CLI was during an attempt to install X on an unsupported machine.
AFAIK Microsoft had access to Macs before the introduction.
How would putting it on eBay be any different from the current process? And why would anyone pay billions for it, when there's no way in hell you'd be able to recoup that investment.
No one would pay $10k for a domain name, so a new owner asking that much will only shoot himself in the foot.
Browsing at +1, the topic contains 181 comments in 3 threads. The majority (like, 175 comments) are in "What's up with the modified statue", discussing a frigging fig leaf. /., what else did you expect")
# of comments saying "Cool that we found this ancient star map", or otherwise even remotely related to astronomy: zero.
(yeah, I know, "this is
So I'll say it: Cool that we found this ancient star map. Pity we don't have Hipparchus' complete works, though.
No. Hit charts are based at least in part on airplay, which makes them a clusterfuck based on the taste of a few DJs.
A command-line interface, on the other hand, is a guided conversation.
Uh, no. A command line offers no clue as to possible commands, for example. You need a teacher to figure it out. "man ls" offers no help for the non-technical, and supposes you already know to use "ls" if you want to know about a folder's contents.
'Calm and soothing' aren't words I'd describe the CLI learning curve, either. "Hair-tearingly frustrating and arcane" would come closer - for me, at least.
With a GUI, you have no syntax errors. Every option you have is visible. Teaching someone how to use a mouse, how to double-click etc. takes far less time and effort than teaching them how to use a CLI.
And yes, I taught people aged 70+ how to use a computer. One guy was up and producing newsletters within hours of getting his first computer (a Mac). With a CLI-only computer, he wouldn't have progressed beyond ls -a by then.
What "vast momentum" would that be? Interface design has been stagnant since 1984. I've seen nothing that can replace the desktop. The two companies placed best to introduce such a replacement are either too busy refining their current projects (Apple) or are content to sit on their ass and copy other people's work (Microsoft).
You're right, As long as there is an easy way to...
It depends heavily on what you're doing. rm *.jpg is fast, but removing half the JPEGs in a folder based on "I don't need this file any more" would be much faster in a GUI.
I suspect there are at least as many tasks where a GUI is faster as where a CLI would have the advantage.
Winamp has sucked from day one. Its ability to use skins meant that none of the controls were standard Windows controls, including the bar at the top of the window, and the text. So it didn't scale with the Windows UI ("use large fonts" setting).
It also looked horrible, with tiny controls and text.
Windows Mediaplayer sucks even more, with moronic skins that only work half the time (try running the app full-screen: it'll revert to the default appearance).
Hah. "sid=05/01/18/038209&tid=189&tid=156&tid=185" isn't an ugly serial number?
That's what mirrors are for ;-)
Complaints that no one understands. ... I think they become harder for experienced people to use.
I'm not surprised. You're part of the tiny minority that actually prefers a CLI environment. For that minority, GUIs can be hard to use, mostly because this group can't be bothered to learn to use the GUI/has CLI reflexes so stubborn no amount of GUI work is going to displace them.
I think that only goes for the tiny minority I mentioned before.
Still, you're right in saying that there hasn't been much progress in UI design.