Finaly the telcos have realized what 3G is, i.e. a broadband packet based data network. 2G is already adequite for talking, so 3G must offer good data transfer solutions. It may be files, it may be movies, or any other data, but not soley speach. With the suggested rates for the Swedish 3G networks I doubt that this will get a proper breakthrough, but still, it is cheaper and faster than my crappy 9600 GSM transfers.
I used to work for having a silent computer but now I've put away the computer in a closet, done some cabeling and I don't have to worry. (The closet is quite big, and chilly since it is on an outside wall that is badly insulated). Actually, clothes also dampen sound really well...
You can do two types of load tests: 1) number crunching and 2) transfer rates. Which is important to you (perhaps both?) is depending on what you want to use the system for.
If you want to crunch a few ones and zeroes, look at the following book: Designing and Building Parallel Programs (it is free!). If you pick a nice algo here you can probably test some bandwidth too.
As a side note: he doesn't need a Beowolf cluster of these, he allready has a distributed computer system!
How much of your 200GB is 'user documents'. I believe that much of it can be found on various installation CDs (or P2P networks), no need to backup such data.
As you say CDs aren't reliable enough to trust for backup, but if you make backups *frequently* and have a RAID system you will probably not lose too much work.
You must always, under all circumstances have all your data on backup! There are no exception to this rule, there are no excuses!
No matter how much (or little) warranty your drive has, you will never get your old data back (without paying loads of money).
When disks are getting as cheap as they are today I suggest using a RAID system to make it more likely that your files will survive.
Use a backup system to regulary backup your user area(s). CD writers are cheap, and so is webspace and bandwidth. I always mail myself my most important messages to have them on my ISP's server.
I didn't know when the PPC was introduced to the Macs, so I just generalized a bit. What I meant to say is that the 68k (great chip!) was outdated in the end, but Apple still used them.
I'd always prefer a RISC CPU since the instruction set is more general. In RISCs there are usually only general purpose registers (i.e. no cx for loops, etc.) which yeilds less complexity both in the hardware and in the compilers.
Since x86s now days are RISCs with a CISC shell, why not simply remove that extra layer of complexity and simply introduce a plain RISC architecture.
If you want to know how *bad* the x86 is, simply try too boot of a floppy and enter protected mode. You enter the CPU in 16 bits mode, have to fiddle with some special reigster, make sure to take a jump and then you're in.
"Expected battery Life: The 5300 will come packaged with a standard battery and an extended battery providing 2.7 hours talk and 10.4 days standby and 3.8 hours talk and 15 days standby, respectively."
And approximately 5 photos in full resolution with flash...:)
Seriously speaking. The limiting factor today for wearable electronics does not seem to be the size or functionality that can be crammed into a palmsized shell but simply the battery time. Either you end up with something heavy, or you end up with something that only works for a couple of hours.
I give up this flamewar.
I like the new macs, but I feel that they are more expensive that PCs^H^H^Hx86s.
What I wanted to say was that the mainstream computer aught to be a RISC machine. If the platform is a Mac, that is OK. The problem is that finder is propetary and that there are no (or few) producers of hardware except Apple.
"Yes, they sucked. They play nice now. Look at IBM, they sucked in the late eighties, now they rock. Companies change. Perhaps in 10 years we'll all love Mircosoft around here."
I still don't want an IBM stationary. I can use their laptops as laptops are bound to have quirks anyway. I'm just worried since (to my knowledge) there are no custom Macs (i.e. just one manufacturer of boards).
I live in Sweden. I just poped by www.komplett.se and picked one of their standard computers:
Box: AVANTECH Medium Tower - Skruvlöst Kabinett m/300W
Processor: AMD Athlon XP2100+ 1.733 GHz 266 MHz bus - Socket A (Palomino) processor
CD-Burner/CD-reader: Asus CD-brännare IDE 40x/12x/48x CRW-4012A, Intern (FlextraLink)
DVD-Player: Asus DVD -spelare IDE 16x/48x (DVD-E616)
Soundcard: Soundblaster compatible
Speakers: Creative Högtalare SBS250 2 active speakers, White box
Network card: CNet Kort 10/100 Mbps PCI - TP only Davicom Chipset
FDD: Nec 1,44MB
Screen: Hansol 19" CRT 920P TCO-99
Keyboard, Mouse & Mousepad
Microsoft Windows XP Home (Svensk)
3 years warranty and free telephonesupport
This for only 12999SEK (around 1275Euro). This gives me a few hundreds to play with to get the Movie Studio and Works.
As for selecting extras for the PC to make it as good as the Mac. I had the same discussion with an Atari owner a few years back (I too am an Atari owner and user). He claimed that it was cheap as an extra MIDI interface would cost so and so much for a competing brand.
* I know what PC means, but I used in such a way that I though that it was clear what I was saying. Please do not use spelling misstakes and such as an argument (it often happens at/.)
* The BSD license lets them take code and do what ever they want with it, but that does not make it a *good thing*.
* Generic computers now - yes, but I said that they had a history of doing things their way (which generally yeilds more expensive hardware).
* High pricing - YES. I'd say what you show is expensive, even compared to a Dell or a Compaq. I do not see apperance as a reason for buying a computer (I have mine in a closet). Concerning Macs lasting longer, could it be because the development of new models is slower?
There is also the problem with other apps (intended for Windows or even (shiver) DOS). These apps are developed as propetary software and will be hard to simply re-compile.
WinXP even has a compatibility mode to run older apps since the system has been so badly designed from the start.
As for the pricing. The prices would drop if major suppliers started supporting them. This is what I want: the major players (i.e. "the computer industry") should realize that it is time to make a platform switch before we dig our selves even deeper into this pit of horror (i.e. x86 architecture).
I know that gcc isn't a Linux app, what I was trying to say is that applications *developed* in a Linux environment easily ports to other platforms. Even though the endianess and variable sizes may differ. This is due to good coding. Keep that up!
Benchmarks are as bad as statistics. They measure nothing but how much you can tweak your CPU and compiler to fit that specific benchmark.
I would say that AMD may have an advantage for being more backwards compatible than Itanium, but I also feel that it is time for a change!
All major CPU manufacturers make proper RISC CPU already so why don't we find them in our ordinary computers? It is because the Windows codebase cannot simply be recompiled for a new target but has to be ported function by function (painful assignment, to say the least). Perhaps they can reuse 3/4 of the code, but still, there is a whole lot or rewriting and verification to do.
I have worked in a Tru64 environment (running Alpha CPUs) and I was surprised of how easy it was to get 95% of the Linux apps to properly compile and run. I didn't try to get Linux it self running but I had gcc running and that was enough.
What I'm trying to say is that the open source movement has proven that one can write portable code successfully and that it is time to make a hardware change. The serial ATA and AGP solutions from the PC are good enough, so is the PCI bus (lots of peripihals available) so I wouldn't change that, but simply make the standard computer run multiple RISC CPUs and a proper multi-threaded OS that can take advantage of that and then you'll have a performance boost that would make P4 look like a bicycle compared to a F1 car (ok, perhaps a Porche, but still, an F1 does 0-200kph in
While I'm at the subject. As we have bochs, it would still be possible to run Windows in a VM, no matter what platform we use, so all M$ users could be happy, or do as ACorn did (does), have a PC as a extension card, i.e. run a PC natively in a window, just used the *fast* RISC CPU for any real work.
This is my humble opinion on how to design a good interface:
1. Define your 'document', i.e. the data you're going to work with as a set of classes.
2. Define a user interface that lets you access these classes (their methods and properties) when they are relevant.
3. Make sure to analyse what functions that are going to be used most, make them one, or at worst two-click commands.
There are a number of ways of showing information to the user. I list a few good ways here, no special order:
* Show global information in a status area that is globally (read always) visible.
* Show local information in a special area, so that the options for a line and a box appear in the same place even though they may contain different options.
* Provide two interfaces for complex operations, one wizard (with an 'don't show this again'-option) and one dialog (possibly with tabs) allowing the advanced user to pick the items that he/she needs.
* Use context menus (right clickable or automatically appearing in the menu bar).
* Make frequently used commands (let the user choose, but supply an intelligent default) on a toolbar. Let these buttons simply trigger a standard command, i.e. no extra code here!
If you have done your document classes right it shouldn't be too hard to add all the inteface classes around them. Perhaps you will have to handle some states in a view, etc. But otherwise it should just be a matter of wrapping the document into something UI like.
As for tools I must say avoid MFC (i mean *run* if you hear it mentioned, it is not a serious option). The same applies to Borland's alternative (I cannot remember what it is called). If you are forced to write in C, use GTK and perhaps Gnome, but be prepared to write OO code in C, and a huge dependency problem if you use Gnome. Also, portability is not always what it aught to be. If you have the freedom to use C++, use Qt. It is portable, beautifully designed and works flawlessly.
I must also say that the implementation 'method' I presented above fits very nicely into Qt. I think (haven't tried any big projects with it yet) that it is quite easy to do in GTK too.
I used to love AmiPro (later renamed WordPro), but saw one big flaw: inconsistent interface between the different office components (1-2-3 and WordPro had the same button icon for different ops, etc.).
This could be a problem to GnomeOffice too, as they simply bundle old apps as an office. Hopefully KOffice will not run into this brickwall!
I'd say that the first impression is that this looks very promissing. This combined with zooming will work with most textbased sites, but there might be problems with sites using tables to structurize a graphical menu (games sites, etc. not just p0rn:) ).
Anyway, it will allow me to read/. on the train going to work instead of sitting here wasting my boss' time.
I wouldn't say that the Office (or Word) pricesrise is "caused by piracy". I would say that it has been rised because Micro$oft has been able to establish a de-facto standard with a format so complex that it is down-right impossible to import properly into a competing product (object linking and embedding has made it really difficult) and now they charge for it. In other words: it is due to the lack or competition and a large amount of greed from M$.
I'm not complaining, I'm trying to encourage the development direction in the mentioned project. The original posting complains about not having all features in the downscaled version. He can use Mozilla then, everyone is free to make their choice!
I actually said "smart way of letting applications interact", i.e. not OLE, ActiveX or any other M$ way of doing it. I have been developing and debugging OCXs this summer and I hate it!
Re:But I *like* those functions...
on
Phoenix 0.3 Is Out
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Why not having all those functions in separate applications that can be automatically embedded into Mozilla if wanted/needed and otherwise leave them out.
I'd say that all this integration makes we want to go back to text mode only. Apps should have one purpose (for example browsing) otherwise they end up being bloated gigants.
Great work! I think that this is the direction to move - lots of small(?) apps, one for each purpose. What is needed is a smart way of letting applications interact (DCOP anyone?), instead of merging them into huge projects.
This was actually the original UNIX philosopy, lots of small tools interacting to achieve something complex. Let us bring this idea to the desktop and create the most flexible, powerful, easy-to-use desktop ever seen.
Slashdot Mirror
Finaly the telcos have realized what 3G is, i.e. a broadband packet based data network. 2G is already adequite for talking, so 3G must offer good data transfer solutions. It may be files, it may be movies, or any other data, but not soley speach. With the suggested rates for the Swedish 3G networks I doubt that this will get a proper breakthrough, but still, it is cheaper and faster than my crappy 9600 GSM transfers.
I used to work for having a silent computer but now I've put away the computer in a closet, done some cabeling and I don't have to worry. (The closet is quite big, and chilly since it is on an outside wall that is badly insulated). Actually, clothes also dampen sound really well...
You can do two types of load tests: 1) number crunching and 2) transfer rates. Which is important to you (perhaps both?) is depending on what you want to use the system for.
If you want to crunch a few ones and zeroes, look at the following book: Designing and Building Parallel Programs (it is free!). If you pick a nice algo here you can probably test some bandwidth too.
As a side note: he doesn't need a Beowolf cluster of these, he allready has a distributed computer system!
How much of your 200GB is 'user documents'. I believe that much of it can be found on various installation CDs (or P2P networks), no need to backup such data.
As you say CDs aren't reliable enough to trust for backup, but if you make backups *frequently* and have a RAID system you will probably not lose too much work.
There is only one rule!
You must always, under all circumstances have all your data on backup! There are no exception to this rule, there are no excuses!
No matter how much (or little) warranty your drive has, you will never get your old data back (without paying loads of money).
When disks are getting as cheap as they are today I suggest using a RAID system to make it more likely that your files will survive.
Use a backup system to regulary backup your user area(s). CD writers are cheap, and so is webspace and bandwidth. I always mail myself my most important messages to have them on my ISP's server.
I didn't know when the PPC was introduced to the Macs, so I just generalized a bit. What I meant to say is that the 68k (great chip!) was outdated in the end, but Apple still used them.
I'd always prefer a RISC CPU since the instruction set is more general. In RISCs there are usually only general purpose registers (i.e. no cx for loops, etc.) which yeilds less complexity both in the hardware and in the compilers.
Since x86s now days are RISCs with a CISC shell, why not simply remove that extra layer of complexity and simply introduce a plain RISC architecture.
If you want to know how *bad* the x86 is, simply try too boot of a floppy and enter protected mode. You enter the CPU in 16 bits mode, have to fiddle with some special reigster, make sure to take a jump and then you're in.
"Expected battery Life: The 5300 will come packaged with a standard battery and an extended battery providing 2.7 hours talk and 10.4 days standby and 3.8 hours talk and 15 days standby, respectively."
:)
And approximately 5 photos in full resolution with flash...
Seriously speaking. The limiting factor today for wearable electronics does not seem to be the size or functionality that can be crammed into a palmsized shell but simply the battery time. Either you end up with something heavy, or you end up with something that only works for a couple of hours.
These users is the reason to why Apple has been able to survive the late 80s and early 90s when the x86 ran away from then performance wise.
It is fun to notice all these little fanatic communities for all old computers: Atari, Amiga, ABC80, Spectrum, C64...
It is nice to see that some of us aren't here just for performance and the latest games!
I give up this flamewar.
I like the new macs, but I feel that they are more expensive that PCs^H^H^Hx86s.
What I wanted to say was that the mainstream computer aught to be a RISC machine. If the platform is a Mac, that is OK. The problem is that finder is propetary and that there are no (or few) producers of hardware except Apple.
"Yes, they sucked. They play nice now. Look at IBM, they sucked in the late eighties, now they rock. Companies change. Perhaps in 10 years we'll all love Mircosoft around here."
I still don't want an IBM stationary. I can use their laptops as laptops are bound to have quirks anyway. I'm just worried since (to my knowledge) there are no custom Macs (i.e. just one manufacturer of boards).
I live in Sweden. I just poped by www.komplett.se and picked one of their standard computers:
Box: AVANTECH Medium Tower - Skruvlöst Kabinett m/300W
Processor: AMD Athlon XP2100+ 1.733 GHz 266 MHz bus - Socket A (Palomino) processor
RAM: DDR-DIMM PC2100 256MB DDR
Motherboard: MSI KT3 ULTRA2B Moderkort Socket A VIAKT333, ATA/133, ljud, ATX, USB2.0
HDD: IBM Deskstar 80GB IDE 7200RPM - ATA/100 120GXP
Graphics card: Asus V8420 GeForce4 Ti4200 64MB DDR. - AGP, (V8420/TD) DVI, Tv-Out, Retail.
CD-Burner/CD-reader: Asus CD-brännare IDE 40x/12x/48x CRW-4012A, Intern (FlextraLink)
DVD-Player: Asus DVD -spelare IDE 16x/48x (DVD-E616)
Soundcard: Soundblaster compatible
Speakers: Creative Högtalare SBS250 2 active speakers, White box
Network card: CNet Kort 10/100 Mbps PCI - TP only Davicom Chipset
FDD: Nec 1,44MB
Screen: Hansol 19" CRT 920P TCO-99
Keyboard, Mouse & Mousepad
Microsoft Windows XP Home (Svensk)
3 years warranty and free telephonesupport
This for only 12999SEK (around 1275Euro). This gives me a few hundreds to play with to get the Movie Studio and Works.
As for selecting extras for the PC to make it as good as the Mac. I had the same discussion with an Atari owner a few years back (I too am an Atari owner and user). He claimed that it was cheap as an extra MIDI interface would cost so and so much for a competing brand.
I'll comment you one point at a time.
/.)
* I know what PC means, but I used in such a way that I though that it was clear what I was saying. Please do not use spelling misstakes and such as an argument (it often happens at
* The BSD license lets them take code and do what ever they want with it, but that does not make it a *good thing*.
* Generic computers now - yes, but I said that they had a history of doing things their way (which generally yeilds more expensive hardware).
* High pricing - YES. I'd say what you show is expensive, even compared to a Dell or a Compaq. I do not see apperance as a reason for buying a computer (I have mine in a closet). Concerning Macs lasting longer, could it be because the development of new models is slower?
There is also the problem with other apps (intended for Windows or even (shiver) DOS). These apps are developed as propetary software and will be hard to simply re-compile.
WinXP even has a compatibility mode to run older apps since the system has been so badly designed from the start.
As for the pricing. The prices would drop if major suppliers started supporting them. This is what I want: the major players (i.e. "the computer industry") should realize that it is time to make a platform switch before we dig our selves even deeper into this pit of horror (i.e. x86 architecture).
I know that gcc isn't a Linux app, what I was trying to say is that applications *developed* in a Linux environment easily ports to other platforms. Even though the endianess and variable sizes may differ. This is due to good coding. Keep that up!
I'm sorry for saying "not in ordinary computers". I meant mainstream PCs (which hold a 90% market share or something).
The new Macs look great. Nice RISC CPUs (even multi-processor units) etc. I do however have some issues with Macs:
* The way they used BSD to create MacOS X without giving back to the community.
* Their history of special hardware, special environment and lack of software.
* Their (IMHO) high pricing.
Benchmarks are as bad as statistics. They measure nothing but how much you can tweak your CPU and compiler to fit that specific benchmark.
I would say that AMD may have an advantage for being more backwards compatible than Itanium, but I also feel that it is time for a change!
All major CPU manufacturers make proper RISC CPU already so why don't we find them in our ordinary computers? It is because the Windows codebase cannot simply be recompiled for a new target but has to be ported function by function (painful assignment, to say the least). Perhaps they can reuse 3/4 of the code, but still, there is a whole lot or rewriting and verification to do.
I have worked in a Tru64 environment (running Alpha CPUs) and I was surprised of how easy it was to get 95% of the Linux apps to properly compile and run. I didn't try to get Linux it self running but I had gcc running and that was enough.
What I'm trying to say is that the open source movement has proven that one can write portable code successfully and that it is time to make a hardware change. The serial ATA and AGP solutions from the PC are good enough, so is the PCI bus (lots of peripihals available) so I wouldn't change that, but simply make the standard computer run multiple RISC CPUs and a proper multi-threaded OS that can take advantage of that and then you'll have a performance boost that would make P4 look like a bicycle compared to a F1 car (ok, perhaps a Porche, but still, an F1 does 0-200kph in
While I'm at the subject. As we have bochs, it would still be possible to run Windows in a VM, no matter what platform we use, so all M$ users could be happy, or do as ACorn did (does), have a PC as a extension card, i.e. run a PC natively in a window, just used the *fast* RISC CPU for any real work.
This is my humble opinion on how to design a good interface:
1. Define your 'document', i.e. the data you're going to work with as a set of classes.
2. Define a user interface that lets you access these classes (their methods and properties) when they are relevant.
3. Make sure to analyse what functions that are going to be used most, make them one, or at worst two-click commands.
There are a number of ways of showing information to the user. I list a few good ways here, no special order:
* Show global information in a status area that is globally (read always) visible.
* Show local information in a special area, so that the options for a line and a box appear in the same place even though they may contain different options.
* Provide two interfaces for complex operations, one wizard (with an 'don't show this again'-option) and one dialog (possibly with tabs) allowing the advanced user to pick the items that he/she needs.
* Use context menus (right clickable or automatically appearing in the menu bar).
* Make frequently used commands (let the user choose, but supply an intelligent default) on a toolbar. Let these buttons simply trigger a standard command, i.e. no extra code here!
If you have done your document classes right it shouldn't be too hard to add all the inteface classes around them. Perhaps you will have to handle some states in a view, etc. But otherwise it should just be a matter of wrapping the document into something UI like.
As for tools I must say avoid MFC (i mean *run* if you hear it mentioned, it is not a serious option). The same applies to Borland's alternative (I cannot remember what it is called). If you are forced to write in C, use GTK and perhaps Gnome, but be prepared to write OO code in C, and a huge dependency problem if you use Gnome. Also, portability is not always what it aught to be. If you have the freedom to use C++, use Qt. It is portable, beautifully designed and works flawlessly.
I must also say that the implementation 'method' I presented above fits very nicely into Qt. I think (haven't tried any big projects with it yet) that it is quite easy to do in GTK too.
I used to love AmiPro (later renamed WordPro), but saw one big flaw: inconsistent interface between the different office components (1-2-3 and WordPro had the same button icon for different ops, etc.).
This could be a problem to GnomeOffice too, as they simply bundle old apps as an office. Hopefully KOffice will not run into this brickwall!
I'd say that the first impression is that this looks very promissing. This combined with zooming will work with most textbased sites, but there might be problems with sites using tables to structurize a graphical menu (games sites, etc. not just p0rn :) ). /. on the train going to work instead of sitting here wasting my boss' time.
Anyway, it will allow me to read
I wouldn't say that the Office (or Word) pricesrise is "caused by piracy". I would say that it has been rised because Micro$oft has been able to establish a de-facto standard with a format so complex that it is down-right impossible to import properly into a competing product (object linking and embedding has made it really difficult) and now they charge for it. In other words: it is due to the lack or competition and a large amount of greed from M$.
Can this be soley due to economical reasons, or is it due to the curse of Clippy?
I'm not complaining, I'm trying to encourage the development direction in the mentioned project. The original posting complains about not having all features in the downscaled version. He can use Mozilla then, everyone is free to make their choice!
I actually said "smart way of letting applications interact", i.e. not OLE, ActiveX or any other M$ way of doing it. I have been developing and debugging OCXs this summer and I hate it!
Why not having all those functions in separate applications that can be automatically embedded into Mozilla if wanted/needed and otherwise leave them out.
I'd say that all this integration makes we want to go back to text mode only. Apps should have one purpose (for example browsing) otherwise they end up being bloated gigants.
Great work! I think that this is the direction to move - lots of small(?) apps, one for each purpose. What is needed is a smart way of letting applications interact (DCOP anyone?), instead of merging them into huge projects.
This was actually the original UNIX philosopy, lots of small tools interacting to achieve something complex. Let us bring this idea to the desktop and create the most flexible, powerful, easy-to-use desktop ever seen.