I own an Apple iBook G4 (1 GHz model). The first thing I bought for it was a copy of Halo. Yes, I know laptops are not meant for gaming, but I couldn't resist. My laptop, on battery power, pulling a light load (e-mail, IM, web browsing) it runs around 90F. Pulling a heavier load, on battery, the system runs more like 110F. Pulling a heavy load on AC power, the machine maxes out at 150F, and the (remarkably small) fan (singular) manages to keep the laptop from getting any hotter.
I've owned two other laptops, both Toshibas. One was a Portege (486), the other was a Tecra 520CDT. No idea how hot they ran, but after a point, the Tecra's fan kicked in, and would manage to keep the machine coool, no matter what it was pulling.
My friend's iBook (1.5 Ghz) has no reported overheating problems.
I've taken my iBook apart, I know how small it is, and how cramped it is. By my estimations, it must be a ventilation nightmare. The hottest point is near the center of the laptop, right under my keyboard. It has one itty bitty fan, near the back of the computer, where there's a screen. This machine should be hot, it should not be easy to cool. Yet this machine manages to stabilize. "Yeah, but that's just 1 GHz, running a PowerPC chip that Apple bought because it runs cool." Hence the small fan.
My teacher's monsterous HP Pavilion laptop runs a more power hungry, and hotter Pentium chip of some kind, as well as a high powered GPU with a dual head. He has a pair of gigantic fans on the bottom of his laptop, and has much higher ground clearance. It's got heatsyncs right up to the vents, etc. etc.
This machine runs hotter, so it was designed to accomdate that. Your laptop should have been designed to accomdate the heat output. If it is unable to handle it, it is either (A) A design flaw or (more likely) (B) Defective.
You can use the same software to convert for PSP as for Ipod video ironically enough, just set the aspect ratio to 320X200 mp4 files, (does not support 368x208 like psp does) is a supported format.
Oh, I know that, I know that completely. I use FFmpeg on a regular basis, along side MEncoder.
Though I am not sure about supported bitrates chances are it will work,
See, that's what I don't know. I think it's 768 kilobytes for video (I broke down and bought the "Weapon of Choice" music video, partially to experiment with it, partially because I love it and it's impossible to find a decent quality copy), but does that also apply to H.264? Do I have to disable certain things in the MPEG-4 streams? Etc. etc. I'd rather wait a little while, and find out what the max bitrate is, so I can get the most bang for my buck, if you will.
though I would wait til you ACTUALLY GET an ipod video before you convert your whole collection. So you can use psp video 9 if you wanted, which is what I will use when I get mine.
Well, I don't think I'll ever be using PSP Video 9. Mac/Linux users get the shaft on that. Though, I'm thinking FFmpeg can do the job, no sweat.
However, I would like to see it integrated into itunes, just for simplicity sakes, working with one program is better than two.
Too true. That's been the major complaint with the 5G iPod so far. Perhaps we'll see this feature integrated into iTunes 7. Though you'd seriously think that feature would be in there. After all, the program will transcode audio on demand, and it's built off of the QuickTime libraries (Hell, it practically is QuickTime) so it's not a big leap at all.
You know, this makes me wonder, does anyone know what the video specs are?
This reminds me a little of the PSP's video playback capability. After a little while, people were releasing software to conver the videos. It only took a little longer before FFmpeg had a PSP preset. Perhaps we'll see an iPod preset in FFmpeg or something like it, soon.
iTunes 5
I am not impressed by iTunes 5 at all. When I hear software going from version X.z to version Y, I expect some pretty big changes. This kind of step is similar to that we saw from iTunes 4.8 to iTunes 4.9: adding one big feature with a few other features thrown in the mix. The big feature here is ROKR and iPod nano support. I look at this like OS X 10.4 Tiger: Lots of little nicities, nothing you'll notice on top. Smart Shuffle looks useful, as will Playlist Folders. The reorganized Preferences Menu confused me for a bit, but I got used to it.
Now, what annoys me here is the fact that iTunes 5 is just now introducing features we should have seen long ago. Primarily AAC VBR, and officially endorced bookmarking. I've been converting my audiobooks to AAC and using a "Make Bookmarkable" script to hack in my bookmarking support for quite some time now. It's about time they introduced this feature, long overdue. So is their "Exclude from shuffle" option.
iPod nano
I am a current iPod Mini owner. Not a day goes by when I don't wish I had spent a little more an gotten the full-sized iPod. However, I've tried to make due. Since I upgraded my iBook's hard disk, my music collection expanded from the conservative 4 GB to a large (for my taste) 6.3 GB collection, which includes a large amount of old radio dramas which I have acquired in preparation for a road trip in which I anticipate much boredom.
One thing I never really liked about the Mini was the lack of all-around support. iPod Speaker/Docks were one in particular. Everything was built around the 3G or 4G iPods, and never seemed to say, flat out, "Yes, iPod Mini will work with this." Theoretically, the Dock connector should allow everything to work with it, but with the smaller form factor, will the Mini fit in there without putting all the stress on the connector?
Now, us Mini Owners are going to be up a creek with the nano. Since it's clear the nano is replacing the Mini, accessories for the Mini will start to disappear. Apple is notorious in my mind for not having a lot of legacy hardware support (Does the 1G or 2G iPod even have Podcast support?).
I also have another problem with the nano replacing the Mini. It's flashed based, so shouldn't it be an upgrade for the Shuffle? Apple starts with 5GB, goes to 10GB, then gives us 4GB, up to 6GB, now capping us at 4GB with a base model at 2GB (that's following minimum space, excluding Shuffle). If you're going to offer us less space, at least charge us less for it! Don't give us 6GB now, only to discontinue it in two weeks, and force us to go down to 4GB. Or Apple should at least upgrade the Mini line with 10GB and 15GB drives.
I'm not about to buy a nano. First, my music collection is too big (I hate having to pick-and-choose). Second, I like having some extra hard disk space handy (for storage, temp space, scratch disk for memory heavy applications, who knows). Third, it looks like it would be unweildy. I find it inconvinient to work the Click Wheel on my Mini because I have to bend my thumb in so far to make a full circle. I remember owning a 1G iPod for Windows. If I were to test those two, side by side, I would have chosen the 1G for comfort. Now, look at the size of the nano. Can you imagine an adult's hand trying to work that itty bitty Click Wheel?
But, yes, I know people will buy it anyway. I'm sure there's someone out there who imported one of those necklaces that can be folded into a pair of headphones from Japan, or are waiting for their iPod Femtos, so before you start flaming with all of the now redundant comments, just bear in mind that this is just my opinion.
Awesome - because we all know how well auto-updating stuff goes. Take Windows, for example!:P
Well, as one who manages the family computer, which runs WinXP, AutoUpdate is actually pretty useful. I haven't had to install an update manually for quite some time.
Seriously though, I can't wait until we get an OSX port that doesn't suck (Camino is okay, but what good is it if you can't use all the cool firefox extensions?).
Well, as a Mac OS X user, I feel your pain. But, I'm wondering which parts suck for you? I have issues with page rendering. Look at these rendering jobs from the LiveJournal home page (be kind! this is hosted on my personal server box):
FireFox 1.0 (Sorry, but the "About" Dialogue blocks the effected text, so you'll have to trust me)
Safari 2 (And if you don't trust me, think about how many web browsers have a brushed metal GUI like that)
This occurs on several pages, but the only one I could produce on-demand was the LiveJournal page. Note that this is the LiveJournal home page, not user pages, and contains relatively simple and stable code. Note that Safari and Opera read the pages perfectly fine, but all the Mozilla-based browsers (all versions), even Camino, can't render the page properly. And these problems are not always so minor. On occasion, text can continue right outside of the view (and scroll) of the window. Text boxes will end up with text no longer inline with the cursor, making editing and correcting typos virtually impossible.
Any one else have this problem? I know it's not too isolated since I've had this happen on both installations of OS X 10.4 and even 10.3. Or are there other problems that I don't know about?
where they can go into any hardware store and buy a $1 blank and $3 service to dup your key onto another key?
Boy, are you out of touch. It is not that simple any more (or cheap!). It might be that easy on an '86 Honda, but modern cars have that problem taken care of these days. With my mom's '96 Camry, it seemed Toyota had a stranglehold on key duplication, and had the cost locked at $20 (So much for a $1 blank and $3 service!). Volkswagens (and I think Benz, and a few other car makers do this too) have a key where the up-down grooves are cut into the side of the key, not on top, which makes them very hard to duplicate (I'll bet only the manufacturer does it, for a hefty fee). Have you seen newer GM cars? (I think it's GM, I know it's some US auto maker, might be Pontiac) The keys have a little piece embedded in them that will enable the car to start (without it, it just sits there).
Duplicate keys aren't just duplicate keys any more. Chrysler embeds the car's remote keyless entry system into the keys now. When my dad bought his van, the duplicate was identical to the original. This leads me to believe that your corner store locksmith can't duplicate the key.
Of course, there's also an interesting effect that takes place over time. My mom's Camry's key had (over time) become quite warn and old. Instead of jagged jutts of metal, they became smooth slopes. Well, at one point she decided to get a new key made (we lost the original, and she was scared of losing the valet key). However, strangely enough, the new key refused to start the car. It acted as if we had used the wrong key. It seems that over time the lock became warn with the key to the point where it saw a duplicate as so different from the original. This isn't the only such case of these kinds of things. I had a friend with another older car. At one point, he broke his key in half. The duplicate he had produced wouldn't start his car, but his half-a-key would. Try doing that with a USB key.
Another problem with your statement is that to have your physical key duplicated, you have to take the key somewhere and get a copy made of it. Well, hell, if you can hang onto the key, why not keep it? Because the person will notice it's missing. Perhaps the owner will notice the key is missing while you're out getting it duplicated? Now, to make a copy of a USB key, it's much more subltle. Just bring over your laptop, and tell your friend there's some things you want to pull off of his USB key (it's supposed to act as additional storage, right?). While you're copying the other data, just copy the key. He'll never even know it's missing.
With 40 players, each player is a cog. A priest for example is strictly a healer, usually assigned to a couple of players to concentrate on...oooh what fun, cast heal over and over for 30 minutes. A warrior simply spams high threat spells and holds the mob in place where the group wants it.
40 players? Hell, Final Fantasy XI manages to do it with six! SquareEnix laughs in Blizzards face as it is able to more efficiently turn players into cogs! Mwa ha ha ha!
I'm actually quite excited and surprised (though maybe I shouldn't be) that Quake 3's source was released. I expected such a thing to remain closed source for as long as the company could hold on to it.
However, putting that aside, this isn't going to be an earth shattering experience for everyone. Q3's source doesn't seem to want to work without the retail version. I compiled my copy on a 1GHz G4 using XCode2, and while I got some binaries really fast, I couldn't use them for anything.
But I'm confused with reading posts of people running their own source code. Perhaps someone should have stuck a line in the README.txt file that read "this is *not* the game!"
I think that this is possibly the best thing to happen to voting since... before hanging chads, dimples, and pregnant dimples came into our vocabulary. Also, it's a tried-and-tested system, paper trails that is.
At work, almost every electronic machine we use leaves a paper trail. Our registers print a journal of every purchase we ring up, and mistake we correct, in addition to keeping track pay-at-pump purchases, and the verbosity can be changed. The Minnesota State Lottery Machine produces a paper report for every lottery ticket we cash out or cancel. We then just file those away.
And, (like mentioned below) the paper trail would be computer/human readable, which would make recounts much quicker, more reliable, and less expensive. "Go ahead, have another recount. The results will be in tomorrow." I don't think we can go wrong with this one. As much as it pains me to say this (as a Minnesotan), Go Cheese-heads, Go!
This reminds me of Sega's decision with the Dreamcast. They promised to include a DVD drive with the Dreamcast when they felt the technology was mature enough. They never released it. And this wasn't the only time something like this happened. Let's not forget Sega's decision to release the Broadband Adapter over a year after the DC came out.
Then there was the SegaCD and the 32x. Sega felt that CD technology was mature enough for use. Let's add it on to the machine! Nintendo even considered the same thing and dropped it like a hot potato (now we have the PlayStation). And let's not forget the Nintendo64's RAM expansion, which I think only one or two games required to work, a handful supported, and the rest ignored. I'll be the only reason those things moved was because the Nintendo zealots had to have Majora's Mask. Check out any non-Zelda fan who owned the '64, see if they have the RAM expansion.
Sony said that the hard disk and network adapter would be an add-on for the PlayStation 2. The Network Adapter has seen some pretty good action (far from the stelar action we've seen with the XBox). But the hard disk is pretty much a flop. The only game to support it is Final Fantasy XI, and 90% of the features Sony promised us (the ability to store/play/view MP3's/videos/photos) never materialized. The only other peripheral to do worse in the current generation of gaming was the GameCube Network Adapter. I know of only two games that support it (Phantasy Star Online Ver. 1 and 2 and Mario Kart Double Dash, though MKDD doesn't have online support, last I checked), and I would be damned if I could find one to save my life.
I think that MS will either reverse itself on the decision and end up throwing in HD-DVD on the XBox 360, or they'll just drop HD-DVD all together. Because let's face it, add-ons like this usually cost way more than people are willing to put into their gaming console, and therefore they tend to do poorly.
O.K., first I'll debunk the problems in the article.
) Compatible control keys. Switching between Mac and Windows this drives me nuts. I have to consciously think "command-C or control-C?" It shouldn't have to be that way. And if you're running RDC or VPC and copying and pasting between OS X and Windows!! Sheesh!
First, I currently use Windows XP, OS X, and Debian, sometimes all at once. I never have any problem remembering which button is which, except when I move to a differently shaped keyboard (ergonomic ones, etc.). The author's problem is muscle memory. The only place where I can agree this problem exists is in X11 under Aqua, where most X11 apps use the control key, and the rest of the Apple apps use Ctrl. But even then it's not that bad. And if you think I'm using some ubernice keyboard, I'm using a 12" iBook keyboard. It's pretty small.
2) Save button on toolbars. I don't think any of the Apple software ever gives you the option to include a Save button. Print button yes, Save button no. A little test - raise your hand if you save your work more often than you print it? Ah, so I'm not alone. Good. You can put your hands down. Thank you.
Has this person used MS Office for OS X? It exists there. It depends on the program you're using. It's not an OS-level problem.
3) A multi button mouse. And you thought I'd say two. Why stop at two? Especially with things like Exposé, Dashboard and Spotlight. They're just crying out for single click activation from a mouse. Ok. So this isn't a Windows feature per sé, but still is needed.
This is a fundamental split in philosophy between Windows and Macintosh. The Windows philosophy is "Can we do it? Then let's do it!" The Mac Philosophy is "Will this get in the user's way? Let's put it in there, but make it so a user who knows how to use it will know how to activate it." OS X has support for ubermice with god knows how many buttons. I have a five button trackball that works with no problem. And case-in-point with the Mac philosophy: My parents don't bother with the right mouse button. All it ever does is confuse them. Hell, it confuses some of my more computer savy friends. The only use they really have for a right mouse button is to bring up the Display Prefs to change their background, and gaming.
The other problem here is that Exposé, Spotlight and Dashboard are not asking for dedicated mouse buttons. I can picture it now, my dad trying to click on a link, whoops! Hit the wrong button! "*Insert my name here*! What the hell happened to the computer?" Seriously, it would be that bad. One wrong click suddenly causing dramatic change of the desktop environment? No. Besides, I use the keyboard more often than the mouse. I have no problem with F9, F10, F11, and F12.
4) Only show relevant file types in open and save dialogs. For those who like seeing every file that's every existed in their Documents folder, give them a checkbox to show all files. But personally, if I am opening a Pages file, I don't want to see all my iMovie, Excel, iDVD etc files. And OS X already knows which are which because non-related ones are greyed out.
That's just stupidity. There are reasons that the Movies, Music, Documents, etc. directories exist. Documents in OS X is not My Documents in XP. Home in OS X is more akin to My Documents. And last time I checked, XP didn't have this feature. This is the user's sheer lazyness, in refusing to organize their files. Try organizing it from a command line.
5) Sort folders to top of directory listings I know that we don't go folder mining as much since we got Spotlight, so I won't labor on about this one.
I kind of agree with this one, but there's always Sort By Type.
6) More context sensitive help. I notice since I first raised this two years ago, more of it has crept into OS X. S
I've used Win 3.11 through XP (No NT experience) and I saw a revolutionary changes in the UI between 3.11 and 95. No one dropped 95 like a hot potato!
Between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X, the UI was changed dramatically, but people haven't been abandoning OS X in droves! Hell, because of the change in UI, people have been coming to OS X.
That's when you do UI change right. MS screwed up a bit in XP when they rebuilt the Start Menu, confusing my somewhat computer illiterate family. However, when they use my iBook, they have no problem finding FireFox and zipping around from page to page, window to window.
True, it's what's under the hood that counts, but what you've said about changing the UI and people migrating is totally wrong. People use a platform for it's availability (Which MS owns), available software, and stability. That's why a lot of companies haven't updated to newer versions of Windows: Their software breaks. No one will be fleeing MS because of a little change in UI. If there's something wrong with it, they'll just curse it out and (for fear of change) keep going on.
Twenty Four? You mean they cut out all of Episodes 25 and 26? Or did cutting out Pen Pen and Co. (Let's face it, all we care about is that damn penguin) shave the entire series down two episode (kinda like the opposite of leap year)?
I have a computer that's a combination of server and router. For that, I use ipkungfu. It does the trick for me. Of course, my server is rather low key, but does serve as a leaf on an IRC network. It all depends on how heavily your server is used.
Alternatively you could ask, how would we design the Mac today if we limited ourselves to hardware available in 1984?
This reminds me of things I used to do with my old laptops. When I had first gotten into Linux, my friend had just told me about this nifty used laptop he had gotten, and now had this old 486 laptop lying around. And I thought, "why not install Linux on it?" For the challenge of it all. Now, one can easily install a simple and stripped down Linux system in a disk the size of 20 MB. But, I wanted to install a graphics viewer, GQView, in addition. This was on a 486 with 8 MB RAM, 120 MB HDD, and only a PCMCIA slot (we did have a compatible NIC) and floppy slot to work with. It was quite a challenge to get it all to fit, but eventually we had a fully functional Linux distro (debian) on this ancient machine.
Later on, I got a better laptop, albeit used (I wanted a working battery). A Tecra 520 CDT with a P166/MMX. I abused that thing until I got it playing DivX Videos. Modified videos, yes, but DivX (and far better than other offerings on better machines, such as DCDivX, or even what can be produced on my Tungsten E. But the idea was to see, with modern knowledge and software, tweaking as much as possible, how far can one push one's machine, within the explicit limitations of the existing hardware?
Today, the Tecra is still in use, though relegated to an additional terminal for StarCraft games.
I have a mostly unused Mac Classic II sitting in my bed room, and I've often wondered, "can I do something like that with this?" Is there something I can do with it? I've always looked forward to a challenge, and I think that your proposal, and to an extent, what I've been doing, fits that perfectly.
Back when computing was computing, and there was real competition in the market place.
This reminds me of the first computer that was personally mine, a Mac Classic II. Of course, I got this computer when Win98 was out, but I wanted a computer I wouldn't have to share for typing up school papers. I never got around to using the thing, except for playing around with it a bit, installing System 7.2, and trying to run Linux. Never did get Linux running on that thing though. Still, I've always wanted to find a use for this thing. I hate having crap lying around that doesn't have a purpose (even if it is just for aesthetic purposes, like art). I've repurposed many a things, including an XBox. Anyone know of anything useful a Mac Classic II can be applied to these days? And no stupid answers like "paper weight" or "macquarium." I mean for the challenge of it all! Wasn't that the spirit of the time? Let's challenge things, push the envelope, take a risk, and see just what this thing can do!
And 21 short years later, it turns out they planned it all along!
Right, that's why they introduced software in System 7 that could FAT formatted disks, while MS snubbed (and still snubbs) and kind of multi-format support apart from formats found on CDs, DVDs, VFAT, and NTFS. OS X has support for VFAT, classic HFS, flavors of HFS+ (case (in)sensitive) some UNIX file systems, I think NTFS (ro perhaps?), Samba, NFS, ATalk, a few other communication protocols, the GCC, and 802.11b/g, all out of the box.
The point is, that with all of those, Apple could have taken a similar step. Apple never needed to introduce FAT compatibility into System 7, never needed to introduce UNIX file system compatibility, could have stuck with HFS, didn't need Samba or NFS, could have left out the GCC, and developed a proprietary wireless communication protocol. No, instead they decided to support what others supported. Now, Macs use most of the same hardware that PCs use, and will soon be moving the the same CPU archetecture.
In the meantime, Windows Users need for-pay software to read HFS or EXT2/3 formatted disks, software that doesn't integrate into their OS. They also need to go digging around for clunky NFS software, and God help them if they want ATalk. No official system cross-compatibility exists. In fact, if you want to use OS independent software on your computer, you need to go out and get CygWin or MinGW, neither of which are included with the OS. The only thing that Windows and OS X explicitly share are Samba (though Windows doesn't call it that) and 802.11b/g. That is, assuming you don't count USB or Ethernet.
Besides, Apple worked on the 68000 CPU! If they intended 8086 CPU support, or MS-DOS compatibility, they would have used the 8086 CPU! So what if they never planned for IBM-PC compatibility? It's not like Microsoft plans for PowerPC or 68k support.
Ahh, but you forget there is reason to their madness! Apple has maintained the one-button mouse for simplicity. I have two friends who are far from adept with computers. One uses a Mac, the other a PC. While attempting to set up a three player StarCraft game, the Mac user had an easier time learning to Ctrl+Click on minerals to have his SVCs gather, than the PC user who was fumbling with left and right clicks.
I personally come from a varied background. I've used the C64 and it's GUI program GEOS, I've used DOS 5, DOS 6.2 with 4DOS, Windows 3.1, 95, 98se, Me, and XP. I've used Mandrake and Debian, Gnome, Fluxbox and KDE. I've also had experience at school with Mac OS 7. And now I'm using OS X. One thing that peeves me is that people knock things before they try them. Everything I've mentioned above uad support for two button mice (except DOS, Mac OS 7, and GEOS which had support for two button joysticks). And, except for OS X, all of the machines that supported two button mice had two button mice. This means I've used a lot of mice. Adapting to a one-button system was not as hard as I thought it would be. Ctrl-Click isn't that hard (unless you're using X11, then it's Cmd-Click).
Apple has kept the one-button mouse for simplicity. In fact, most of OS X is designed around simplicity. My dad, who works with computers but is mostly computer illiterate, has had no problem navigating web sites with my iBook. The biggest problem he's ever had with it was when a site opened a page in a new window and he couldn't go "back" any more. One button was no problem for him. One button is no problem for any of my friends, even in games like StarCraft, where the PC version uses two mouse buttons.
OS X is actually designed for two button mice
I hate to tell you, but it actually has support for two mice, and up to four buttons. Well, two mice if you have a laptop. The built-in track-pad with one button and two-finger scrolling, and a mouse with two buttons and a clickable scroll wheel. I happen to own a four-button trackball with a clickable scroll wheel, and with the included software, OS X makes simple work of the thing.
You know what, with OS X being UNIX based now, why not just release the source code? Make the Linux people happy too, while you're at it. If they can do it for Tux Racer, FreeCiv, and numerous other programs, why can't they do it for something like this?
I'm partly with you here. True, The Rock sucked, and Armageddon wasn't that good, but Robocop was good. True, it had crappy effects, and the cheesiest lines you'll ever see, but the commentary (like mentioned already), reinforced by the subtle jokes (The SUX9000) were good.
And they chose some real bombs, like Andrei Rublev. Rublev was a film I just could not sit through. Me and my dad were forced to sit through it in twenty minute blocks. I can sit through all sorts of movies, good, bad, slow, awesome, and crappy action. But Rublev was so slow, and seemed to have no plot at all. I got about half way through it and gave up.
However, the vast majority of the films are excellent, practically some of the best! Seven Samurai, Solaris, and even some Fritz Lang works (I'm actually surprised Metropolis isn't a part of it!).
I look at The Criterion Collection as any human work: it's not infallible. It's got a lot of the top quality stuff, bit they can make mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
I own an Apple iBook G4 (1 GHz model). The first thing I bought for it was a copy of Halo. Yes, I know laptops are not meant for gaming, but I couldn't resist. My laptop, on battery power, pulling a light load (e-mail, IM, web browsing) it runs around 90F. Pulling a heavier load, on battery, the system runs more like 110F. Pulling a heavy load on AC power, the machine maxes out at 150F, and the (remarkably small) fan (singular) manages to keep the laptop from getting any hotter.
I've owned two other laptops, both Toshibas. One was a Portege (486), the other was a Tecra 520CDT. No idea how hot they ran, but after a point, the Tecra's fan kicked in, and would manage to keep the machine coool, no matter what it was pulling.
My friend's iBook (1.5 Ghz) has no reported overheating problems.
I've taken my iBook apart, I know how small it is, and how cramped it is. By my estimations, it must be a ventilation nightmare. The hottest point is near the center of the laptop, right under my keyboard. It has one itty bitty fan, near the back of the computer, where there's a screen. This machine should be hot, it should not be easy to cool. Yet this machine manages to stabilize. "Yeah, but that's just 1 GHz, running a PowerPC chip that Apple bought because it runs cool." Hence the small fan.
My teacher's monsterous HP Pavilion laptop runs a more power hungry, and hotter Pentium chip of some kind, as well as a high powered GPU with a dual head. He has a pair of gigantic fans on the bottom of his laptop, and has much higher ground clearance. It's got heatsyncs right up to the vents, etc. etc.
This machine runs hotter, so it was designed to accomdate that. Your laptop should have been designed to accomdate the heat output. If it is unable to handle it, it is either (A) A design flaw or (more likely) (B) Defective.
Have the manufacturer look at and repair it.
This reminds me a little of the PSP's video playback capability. After a little while, people were releasing software to conver the videos. It only took a little longer before FFmpeg had a PSP preset. Perhaps we'll see an iPod preset in FFmpeg or something like it, soon.
Anyone know anything about this?
I am not impressed by iTunes 5 at all. When I hear software going from version X.z to version Y, I expect some pretty big changes. This kind of step is similar to that we saw from iTunes 4.8 to iTunes 4.9: adding one big feature with a few other features thrown in the mix. The big feature here is ROKR and iPod nano support. I look at this like OS X 10.4 Tiger: Lots of little nicities, nothing you'll notice on top. Smart Shuffle looks useful, as will Playlist Folders. The reorganized Preferences Menu confused me for a bit, but I got used to it.
Now, what annoys me here is the fact that iTunes 5 is just now introducing features we should have seen long ago. Primarily AAC VBR, and officially endorced bookmarking. I've been converting my audiobooks to AAC and using a "Make Bookmarkable" script to hack in my bookmarking support for quite some time now. It's about time they introduced this feature, long overdue. So is their "Exclude from shuffle" option.
iPod nano
I am a current iPod Mini owner. Not a day goes by when I don't wish I had spent a little more an gotten the full-sized iPod. However, I've tried to make due. Since I upgraded my iBook's hard disk, my music collection expanded from the conservative 4 GB to a large (for my taste) 6.3 GB collection, which includes a large amount of old radio dramas which I have acquired in preparation for a road trip in which I anticipate much boredom.
One thing I never really liked about the Mini was the lack of all-around support. iPod Speaker/Docks were one in particular. Everything was built around the 3G or 4G iPods, and never seemed to say, flat out, "Yes, iPod Mini will work with this." Theoretically, the Dock connector should allow everything to work with it, but with the smaller form factor, will the Mini fit in there without putting all the stress on the connector?
Now, us Mini Owners are going to be up a creek with the nano. Since it's clear the nano is replacing the Mini, accessories for the Mini will start to disappear. Apple is notorious in my mind for not having a lot of legacy hardware support (Does the 1G or 2G iPod even have Podcast support?).
I also have another problem with the nano replacing the Mini. It's flashed based, so shouldn't it be an upgrade for the Shuffle? Apple starts with 5GB, goes to 10GB, then gives us 4GB, up to 6GB, now capping us at 4GB with a base model at 2GB (that's following minimum space, excluding Shuffle). If you're going to offer us less space, at least charge us less for it! Don't give us 6GB now, only to discontinue it in two weeks, and force us to go down to 4GB. Or Apple should at least upgrade the Mini line with 10GB and 15GB drives.
I'm not about to buy a nano. First, my music collection is too big (I hate having to pick-and-choose). Second, I like having some extra hard disk space handy (for storage, temp space, scratch disk for memory heavy applications, who knows). Third, it looks like it would be unweildy. I find it inconvinient to work the Click Wheel on my Mini because I have to bend my thumb in so far to make a full circle. I remember owning a 1G iPod for Windows. If I were to test those two, side by side, I would have chosen the 1G for comfort. Now, look at the size of the nano. Can you imagine an adult's hand trying to work that itty bitty Click Wheel?
But, yes, I know people will buy it anyway. I'm sure there's someone out there who imported one of those necklaces that can be folded into a pair of headphones from Japan, or are waiting for their iPod Femtos, so before you start flaming with all of the now redundant comments, just bear in mind that this is just my opinion.
Well, as one who manages the family computer, which runs WinXP, AutoUpdate is actually pretty useful. I haven't had to install an update manually for quite some time.
Seriously though, I can't wait until we get an OSX port that doesn't suck (Camino is okay, but what good is it if you can't use all the cool firefox extensions?).
Well, as a Mac OS X user, I feel your pain. But, I'm wondering which parts suck for you? I have issues with page rendering. Look at these rendering jobs from the LiveJournal home page (be kind! this is hosted on my personal server box):
- FireFox 1.0 (Sorry, but the "About" Dialogue blocks the effected text, so you'll have to trust me)
- FireFox 1.5 Deer Park Beta 1 the distributed Mac OS X binary, not compiled from soruce
- Camino 0.92 just for comparson
- Opera 8.02 for Mac OS X
- Safari 2 (And if you don't trust me, think about how many web browsers have a brushed metal GUI like that)
This occurs on several pages, but the only one I could produce on-demand was the LiveJournal page. Note that this is the LiveJournal home page, not user pages, and contains relatively simple and stable code. Note that Safari and Opera read the pages perfectly fine, but all the Mozilla-based browsers (all versions), even Camino, can't render the page properly. And these problems are not always so minor. On occasion, text can continue right outside of the view (and scroll) of the window. Text boxes will end up with text no longer inline with the cursor, making editing and correcting typos virtually impossible.Any one else have this problem? I know it's not too isolated since I've had this happen on both installations of OS X 10.4 and even 10.3. Or are there other problems that I don't know about?
Boy, are you out of touch. It is not that simple any more (or cheap!). It might be that easy on an '86 Honda, but modern cars have that problem taken care of these days. With my mom's '96 Camry, it seemed Toyota had a stranglehold on key duplication, and had the cost locked at $20 (So much for a $1 blank and $3 service!). Volkswagens (and I think Benz, and a few other car makers do this too) have a key where the up-down grooves are cut into the side of the key, not on top, which makes them very hard to duplicate (I'll bet only the manufacturer does it, for a hefty fee). Have you seen newer GM cars? (I think it's GM, I know it's some US auto maker, might be Pontiac) The keys have a little piece embedded in them that will enable the car to start (without it, it just sits there).
Duplicate keys aren't just duplicate keys any more. Chrysler embeds the car's remote keyless entry system into the keys now. When my dad bought his van, the duplicate was identical to the original. This leads me to believe that your corner store locksmith can't duplicate the key.
Of course, there's also an interesting effect that takes place over time. My mom's Camry's key had (over time) become quite warn and old. Instead of jagged jutts of metal, they became smooth slopes. Well, at one point she decided to get a new key made (we lost the original, and she was scared of losing the valet key). However, strangely enough, the new key refused to start the car. It acted as if we had used the wrong key. It seems that over time the lock became warn with the key to the point where it saw a duplicate as so different from the original. This isn't the only such case of these kinds of things. I had a friend with another older car. At one point, he broke his key in half. The duplicate he had produced wouldn't start his car, but his half-a-key would. Try doing that with a USB key.
Another problem with your statement is that to have your physical key duplicated, you have to take the key somewhere and get a copy made of it. Well, hell, if you can hang onto the key, why not keep it? Because the person will notice it's missing. Perhaps the owner will notice the key is missing while you're out getting it duplicated? Now, to make a copy of a USB key, it's much more subltle. Just bring over your laptop, and tell your friend there's some things you want to pull off of his USB key (it's supposed to act as additional storage, right?). While you're copying the other data, just copy the key. He'll never even know it's missing.
Looks like the site has been slashdotted! I can't access it.
Well, I could do something about a dual-boot Linux/Windows user who switched to OS X.
40 players? Hell, Final Fantasy XI manages to do it with six! SquareEnix laughs in Blizzards face as it is able to more efficiently turn players into cogs! Mwa ha ha ha!
However, putting that aside, this isn't going to be an earth shattering experience for everyone. Q3's source doesn't seem to want to work without the retail version. I compiled my copy on a 1GHz G4 using XCode2, and while I got some binaries really fast, I couldn't use them for anything.
But I'm confused with reading posts of people running their own source code. Perhaps someone should have stuck a line in the README.txt file that read "this is *not* the game!"
At work, almost every electronic machine we use leaves a paper trail. Our registers print a journal of every purchase we ring up, and mistake we correct, in addition to keeping track pay-at-pump purchases, and the verbosity can be changed. The Minnesota State Lottery Machine produces a paper report for every lottery ticket we cash out or cancel. We then just file those away.
And, (like mentioned below) the paper trail would be computer/human readable, which would make recounts much quicker, more reliable, and less expensive. "Go ahead, have another recount. The results will be in tomorrow." I don't think we can go wrong with this one. As much as it pains me to say this (as a Minnesotan), Go Cheese-heads, Go!
Then there was the SegaCD and the 32x. Sega felt that CD technology was mature enough for use. Let's add it on to the machine! Nintendo even considered the same thing and dropped it like a hot potato (now we have the PlayStation). And let's not forget the Nintendo64's RAM expansion, which I think only one or two games required to work, a handful supported, and the rest ignored. I'll be the only reason those things moved was because the Nintendo zealots had to have Majora's Mask. Check out any non-Zelda fan who owned the '64, see if they have the RAM expansion.
Sony said that the hard disk and network adapter would be an add-on for the PlayStation 2. The Network Adapter has seen some pretty good action (far from the stelar action we've seen with the XBox). But the hard disk is pretty much a flop. The only game to support it is Final Fantasy XI, and 90% of the features Sony promised us (the ability to store/play/view MP3's/videos/photos) never materialized. The only other peripheral to do worse in the current generation of gaming was the GameCube Network Adapter. I know of only two games that support it (Phantasy Star Online Ver. 1 and 2 and Mario Kart Double Dash, though MKDD doesn't have online support, last I checked), and I would be damned if I could find one to save my life.
I think that MS will either reverse itself on the decision and end up throwing in HD-DVD on the XBox 360, or they'll just drop HD-DVD all together. Because let's face it, add-ons like this usually cost way more than people are willing to put into their gaming console, and therefore they tend to do poorly.
First, I currently use Windows XP, OS X, and Debian, sometimes all at once. I never have any problem remembering which button is which, except when I move to a differently shaped keyboard (ergonomic ones, etc.). The author's problem is muscle memory. The only place where I can agree this problem exists is in X11 under Aqua, where most X11 apps use the control key, and the rest of the Apple apps use Ctrl. But even then it's not that bad. And if you think I'm using some ubernice keyboard, I'm using a 12" iBook keyboard. It's pretty small.
Has this person used MS Office for OS X? It exists there. It depends on the program you're using. It's not an OS-level problem.
This is a fundamental split in philosophy between Windows and Macintosh. The Windows philosophy is "Can we do it? Then let's do it!" The Mac Philosophy is "Will this get in the user's way? Let's put it in there, but make it so a user who knows how to use it will know how to activate it." OS X has support for ubermice with god knows how many buttons. I have a five button trackball that works with no problem. And case-in-point with the Mac philosophy: My parents don't bother with the right mouse button. All it ever does is confuse them. Hell, it confuses some of my more computer savy friends. The only use they really have for a right mouse button is to bring up the Display Prefs to change their background, and gaming.
The other problem here is that Exposé, Spotlight and Dashboard are not asking for dedicated mouse buttons. I can picture it now, my dad trying to click on a link, whoops! Hit the wrong button! "*Insert my name here*! What the hell happened to the computer?" Seriously, it would be that bad. One wrong click suddenly causing dramatic change of the desktop environment? No. Besides, I use the keyboard more often than the mouse. I have no problem with F9, F10, F11, and F12.
That's just stupidity. There are reasons that the Movies, Music, Documents, etc. directories exist. Documents in OS X is not My Documents in XP. Home in OS X is more akin to My Documents. And last time I checked, XP didn't have this feature. This is the user's sheer lazyness, in refusing to organize their files. Try organizing it from a command line.
I kind of agree with this one, but there's always Sort By Type.
I've used Win 3.11 through XP (No NT experience) and I saw a revolutionary changes in the UI between 3.11 and 95. No one dropped 95 like a hot potato!
Between Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X, the UI was changed dramatically, but people haven't been abandoning OS X in droves! Hell, because of the change in UI, people have been coming to OS X.
That's when you do UI change right. MS screwed up a bit in XP when they rebuilt the Start Menu, confusing my somewhat computer illiterate family. However, when they use my iBook, they have no problem finding FireFox and zipping around from page to page, window to window.
True, it's what's under the hood that counts, but what you've said about changing the UI and people migrating is totally wrong. People use a platform for it's availability (Which MS owns), available software, and stability. That's why a lot of companies haven't updated to newer versions of Windows: Their software breaks. No one will be fleeing MS because of a little change in UI. If there's something wrong with it, they'll just curse it out and (for fear of change) keep going on.
Twenty Four? You mean they cut out all of Episodes 25 and 26? Or did cutting out Pen Pen and Co. (Let's face it, all we care about is that damn penguin) shave the entire series down two episode (kinda like the opposite of leap year)?
I have a computer that's a combination of server and router. For that, I use ipkungfu. It does the trick for me. Of course, my server is rather low key, but does serve as a leaf on an IRC network. It all depends on how heavily your server is used.
This reminds me of things I used to do with my old laptops. When I had first gotten into Linux, my friend had just told me about this nifty used laptop he had gotten, and now had this old 486 laptop lying around. And I thought, "why not install Linux on it?" For the challenge of it all. Now, one can easily install a simple and stripped down Linux system in a disk the size of 20 MB. But, I wanted to install a graphics viewer, GQView, in addition. This was on a 486 with 8 MB RAM, 120 MB HDD, and only a PCMCIA slot (we did have a compatible NIC) and floppy slot to work with. It was quite a challenge to get it all to fit, but eventually we had a fully functional Linux distro (debian) on this ancient machine.
Later on, I got a better laptop, albeit used (I wanted a working battery). A Tecra 520 CDT with a P166/MMX. I abused that thing until I got it playing DivX Videos. Modified videos, yes, but DivX (and far better than other offerings on better machines, such as DCDivX, or even what can be produced on my Tungsten E. But the idea was to see, with modern knowledge and software, tweaking as much as possible, how far can one push one's machine, within the explicit limitations of the existing hardware?
Today, the Tecra is still in use, though relegated to an additional terminal for StarCraft games.
I have a mostly unused Mac Classic II sitting in my bed room, and I've often wondered, "can I do something like that with this?" Is there something I can do with it? I've always looked forward to a challenge, and I think that your proposal, and to an extent, what I've been doing, fits that perfectly.
This reminds me of the first computer that was personally mine, a Mac Classic II. Of course, I got this computer when Win98 was out, but I wanted a computer I wouldn't have to share for typing up school papers. I never got around to using the thing, except for playing around with it a bit, installing System 7.2, and trying to run Linux. Never did get Linux running on that thing though. Still, I've always wanted to find a use for this thing. I hate having crap lying around that doesn't have a purpose (even if it is just for aesthetic purposes, like art). I've repurposed many a things, including an XBox. Anyone know of anything useful a Mac Classic II can be applied to these days? And no stupid answers like "paper weight" or "macquarium." I mean for the challenge of it all! Wasn't that the spirit of the time? Let's challenge things, push the envelope, take a risk, and see just what this thing can do!
Right, that's why they introduced software in System 7 that could FAT formatted disks, while MS snubbed (and still snubbs) and kind of multi-format support apart from formats found on CDs, DVDs, VFAT, and NTFS. OS X has support for VFAT, classic HFS, flavors of HFS+ (case (in)sensitive) some UNIX file systems, I think NTFS (ro perhaps?), Samba, NFS, ATalk, a few other communication protocols, the GCC, and 802.11b/g, all out of the box.
The point is, that with all of those, Apple could have taken a similar step. Apple never needed to introduce FAT compatibility into System 7, never needed to introduce UNIX file system compatibility, could have stuck with HFS, didn't need Samba or NFS, could have left out the GCC, and developed a proprietary wireless communication protocol. No, instead they decided to support what others supported. Now, Macs use most of the same hardware that PCs use, and will soon be moving the the same CPU archetecture.
In the meantime, Windows Users need for-pay software to read HFS or EXT2/3 formatted disks, software that doesn't integrate into their OS. They also need to go digging around for clunky NFS software, and God help them if they want ATalk. No official system cross-compatibility exists. In fact, if you want to use OS independent software on your computer, you need to go out and get CygWin or MinGW, neither of which are included with the OS. The only thing that Windows and OS X explicitly share are Samba (though Windows doesn't call it that) and 802.11b/g. That is, assuming you don't count USB or Ethernet.
Besides, Apple worked on the 68000 CPU! If they intended 8086 CPU support, or MS-DOS compatibility, they would have used the 8086 CPU! So what if they never planned for IBM-PC compatibility? It's not like Microsoft plans for PowerPC or 68k support.
I personally come from a varied background. I've used the C64 and it's GUI program GEOS, I've used DOS 5, DOS 6.2 with 4DOS, Windows 3.1, 95, 98se, Me, and XP. I've used Mandrake and Debian, Gnome, Fluxbox and KDE. I've also had experience at school with Mac OS 7. And now I'm using OS X. One thing that peeves me is that people knock things before they try them. Everything I've mentioned above uad support for two button mice (except DOS, Mac OS 7, and GEOS which had support for two button joysticks). And, except for OS X, all of the machines that supported two button mice had two button mice. This means I've used a lot of mice. Adapting to a one-button system was not as hard as I thought it would be. Ctrl-Click isn't that hard (unless you're using X11, then it's Cmd-Click).
Apple has kept the one-button mouse for simplicity. In fact, most of OS X is designed around simplicity. My dad, who works with computers but is mostly computer illiterate, has had no problem navigating web sites with my iBook. The biggest problem he's ever had with it was when a site opened a page in a new window and he couldn't go "back" any more. One button was no problem for him. One button is no problem for any of my friends, even in games like StarCraft, where the PC version uses two mouse buttons.
OS X is actually designed for two button mice
I hate to tell you, but it actually has support for two mice, and up to four buttons. Well, two mice if you have a laptop. The built-in track-pad with one button and two-finger scrolling, and a mouse with two buttons and a clickable scroll wheel. I happen to own a four-button trackball with a clickable scroll wheel, and with the included software, OS X makes simple work of the thing.
And wireless! A variety of Macs now have Bluetooth mice now. I know many people who opted for Bluetooth mice, laptop and desktop users alike.
You know what, with OS X being UNIX based now, why not just release the source code? Make the Linux people happy too, while you're at it. If they can do it for Tux Racer, FreeCiv, and numerous other programs, why can't they do it for something like this?
And they chose some real bombs, like Andrei Rublev. Rublev was a film I just could not sit through. Me and my dad were forced to sit through it in twenty minute blocks. I can sit through all sorts of movies, good, bad, slow, awesome, and crappy action. But Rublev was so slow, and seemed to have no plot at all. I got about half way through it and gave up.
However, the vast majority of the films are excellent, practically some of the best! Seven Samurai, Solaris, and even some Fritz Lang works (I'm actually surprised Metropolis isn't a part of it!).
I look at The Criterion Collection as any human work: it's not infallible. It's got a lot of the top quality stuff, bit they can make mistakes.
Ahh, true. 90%+ literacy rate sure is nice, too bad AA batteries cost like $8 (But that's because of all the trade embargos, not Cuba's fault)