NT was portable to other 32bit platforms, but it most definately wasn't 64bit clean. The port to the Alpha platform had to use a 32bit emulation feature of the DEC compiler and a lot of the NT code had to be rewritten to work on IA64/AMD64 in 64bit mode. Aside from that, MacOS has always been a 32bit os, the first cpu it ran on was the 32bit 68000, tho it's true Apple took their time porting it to PPC and ran most of the OS under 68k emulation for a few years.. Aside from that, it's funny to note that other companies came out with 64bit os's before ms came out with a 32bit
What in the heck are you smoking?
MacOS has always been a 32bit OS? Really, and it had things like 32bit memory addressing in what version, and moved to pre-emptive multi-tasking in what version?
Even System 9 was not able to do these things, even though the PowerPC processors they ran on were fully capable of it.
The 68000 was a 32bit internal architecture with a 16bit bus. What to debate this? I had an original Mac and AtariST with this CPU in both of them.
As for the "NT was portable to other 32bit platforms, but it most definately wasn't 64bit clean. The port to the Alpha platform had to use a 32bit emulation feature of the DEC compiler and a lot of the NT code had to be rewritten to work on IA64/AMD64 in 64bit mode"
Um, NO, and NO... NT was running on the DEC Alpha and supported not only internal 64bit processing but even external 64bit memory addressing, with compatibility to the lower end Alpha address range. GO LOOK IT UP.
NT was also fully ported the Alpha and running in FULL 64bit mode on the Alpha for Windows 2000. We still have a guy here running Windows 2000 Beta on his on Alpha, in 64bit mode.
If you think the port for NT was so HARD, why was WindowsXP for the Itanium64 released only a couple of months after WindowsXP was released? Um, because it wasn't maybe?
As for the 32bit 'compatibility' of the Alpha compiler, you need to go look this up to. The only thing I can even get close to what you are referencing is the Emulation Layer Alpha designed to allow 32bit x86 software to run on the NT version of Alpha. NT was not compiled on a 32bit Compiler for the Alpha, nor with 32bit emulation features (in a compiler?) for the Alpha or it would not have had access to the 64bit memory ranges or been able to processing everything in Native 64bit modes on the Alpha.
That's why PS2 typically gets big-name 3rd-party titles first (GTA 4), and ports slowly trickle out a year later
A year or two ago this statement would maybe have been a little more true, however since my fiancé works in the retail gaming industry, I can assure people this is more the exception than the norm today.
And the XBOX now has a definite edge on third party game releases. Most games are released PC/XBOX and followed up with PS2 or GameCube versions if they are even made.
There was a day when the PS2 was the target platform, and the other console titles trickled out, but now the PC is usually the target platform because of the high level of graphical performance a PC can do today. So the games are geared for the PC level of high quality textures and performance, with the console versions all being scaled down for performance and quality that the console is capable of with a good frame rate.
And the XBOX benefits greatly from this, since most PC games are DirectX and Windows based. So the XBOX is the console to see non-contract specific games first.
Refreshing to see a post from someone that isn't a moron or zealot and actually remembers NT wasn't x86 technology.
I was going to post along the lines of what you said. Thank you...
Interesting to see that your post is already modded down. Either people don't get it, don't want to get it, or maybe just because you forgot the mandatory MS bashing requirement and didn't put a 'M$ Sux' at the bottom of your post. lol
Anyway, whether people like it or not, your post is on track, this guy must be on crack to think that games would any easier to port to a Mac just because the new XBox hardware is similar.
And the scary sub context of all this, the original post is nothing but a plea for Games for the Mac, without realizing that Apple doesn't have a great graphical performance architecture for gaming. Apple, the mother of consumer level graphical computing, and they still have nothing for providing high end gaming performance.
People used to make fun of Microsoft when they wanted OpenGL to be more hardware optimized, and ended up going their own road with DirectX because of the OpenGL group's reluctance to implement many of the DirectX abilities.
Now you have Windows that has a way for games to access not only video, but all multimedia aspects of the hardware in a way that is hardware independent, but yet has a very small performance hit if any, anymore. And so people are still using Windows to play games on because of its great gaming performance, to the level that a console even came out of the great performance DirectX and Windows coupled with hardware allows, the XBOX.
And now you see other OS developers and companies still trying to emulate or recreate a set of technologies comparable to DirectX.
And Apple hasn't even as been so bold to create a DirectX technology for OSX, instead they are leaving it to OpenGL, which is only a video solution, that still lacks many of the hardware optimization concepts that are in DirectX.
it is a piece of cake porting windows games to linux. just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it 's not easy.
Really, I didn't realize DirectX on Linux was that advanced... =)
OpenGL to OpenGL is the only way games port easily between the two, and porting from DirectX to OpenGL is not a simple port. DirectX has many features that OpenGL has yet to implement or adopt.
if microsoft does a good job with the OS on the next xbox
It is still going to be WindowsNT, just like the last XBox... Basically WindowsXP, and using.NET frameworks for the games, and even the DirectX implementation. So not sure what you mean by 'the OS on the next xbox', the OS is already done, has been for a while.
Kills me that geeks here either don't know or forget that WindowsNT was a real 32bit OS on PowerPCs before Apple's system software was... By SEVERAL years even.
NT is portable, AS portable as any OS or *nix, and it always was, and always will be. That was one of the design conditions for NT that Microsoft will never remove.
OK so that's three features you happened to "mis-mention". That kind of undermines your argument when you're trying to explain how behind the leading edge Apple is... your own best example doesn't have those features either.
I did search for about a half hour before posting the grandparent post. I think I would stick with Dell or Alienware personally because I don't mind spending a bit more for support and some assurance of quality from a known vendor. I'm also surprised that IBM, who once carried the torch of very expensive but also very full-featured laptops, doesn't appear to have anything in this class. Oh well.
The Seagate drive is very real, maybe you need to learn how to search a little better. There are already announce products for in not only in notebooks, but also in small footprint RAID network file server solutions, and this isn't even NEW news.
As for implying that I intentionally fabricated something by quoting the specs from two different systems together, is either really silly or just reaching to substantiate your point. The point remains that the SPECS I stated were real, just not on the unit I stated they were from. This invalidates what? Apple still doesn't have either of these features or comperable features...
As for the name brands, Sager is a larger NAME brand than Alienware, and has been around for a long time.
Ironically Sager is the brand we chose because of dealing with them for several years, there are TONS of other BRAND names that you might not have heard of either, that also have comperable model Computers.
Even HP has the ZD7000 series which is somewhat in this class, although not quite as feature rich as the Sager, but still a leap ahead of the Apple 17" Powerbook. Is HP brand name enough for you?
You are admiting you know very little about the subject if you STILL can't find reference to ANY laptop size 10,000 rpm drive, let alone the Seagate, and that you have no idea even who Sager is, nor realize that tons of PC laptop companies have comperable models to the one I stated, even HP.
So remind me, if you know so little, why did you even bother to post in the first place?
However, I shouldn't be so harsh, as you at least realized that 1600x1200 for graphic designers is a good thing, even in a 15" form factor. - Especially if it were implemented with the Apple GUI that is less bitmap rendered and would scale wonderfully on the higher resolution display, I truly wish Apple would get their head out of the sand and instead of trying to impress us with 17", they would impress us with 17" with more pixels per inch than the average notebook.
How are you going to connect all these hard drives? You mentioned software raid... If you're planning to use the IDE on the motherboard... A motherboard that old might not recognize that large a HD. Got Raid Cards?
Maybe this is just a little to weird, but, why is the mainboard age (BIOS/Recognition) of the Hard Drives even an issue?
At the very least the Mainboard (if way old, say like in the Pentium 166MHz chipset days), it would still see the drives as a 8gb Hard Drive at the very least.
Once the BIOS boots the OS, is not the OS responsible for 'seeing' the hard drives?
Heck, even the driver architecture of Windows NT(XP) has no regard to what the BIOS thinks the hard drives are.
As for the poster's original question...
Yes, Software RAID 5 works well, can be just as reliable as any Hardware RAID 5, and in most cases even have comparable performance, even in high end usage servers.
I can personally attest that even back in the old NT days, that we ran Software RAID 5 on 200 MHz Pentiums with 32mb and 64mb of RAM, with incredible performance and reliability.
Ignore the posters in other threads above telling you that need Mass amounts of RAM in a file server, this is only true if you are going to have tons of users hitting this server at the same time, if it is just a RAID 5 file server for the house or a small office environment, extra RAM isn't going to help much, especially if this server is going to be accessed via a network, the bandwidth is not going to out perform the speed of the Hard Drives or the RAID5, so the RAM, which would be used in a caching capacity would not be necessary or utilized.
Everyone here has an opinion, but the main thing to remember is, YES they all pretty much agree that Software RAID 5 is reliable, and do a little testing yourself, you will find any pitfalls that would be specific to your situation that others won't foresee.
Ok, for the people that think might be deceived into believing that the person that wrote the previous post actually knows what he is talking about, I will respond for clarification.
Bose 802 speakers are based on one of Bose's original speaker designs that made the BOSE name.
The later models of the 802 series of speakers are 'actively' monitored, the above poster can cite this term using whatever words he wants, but the system levels the sound distribution throughout the array to ensure that fidelity is preserved and distortion is almost impossible, even when producing high levels of output.
What the above poster fails to realize or mention when disputing the output ratings and design of the 802 speakers is that they can be chained, so in theory you could have several 802 stacked on each channel of your sound system, virtually giving you an infinite level of wattage.
So stacking two Mono configured Bose 802 speakers would give you 960W of output PER channel, and stacking 4 Bose 802 speakers would give you 1920W of output per channel.
Additionally the above poster tries to be misleading by stating that they are a ported design. They have enclosure porting, but do not have chamber porting, which is what the term porting is often referred to by people in the sound industry.
The Array technology is one of things that is somewhat unique about the Bose 802 and 901 in home speakers. This is what made the early BOSE technology unique and also allows the speakers to produce 'clearer' sound throughout the audible frequency range because it can distribute sound frequencies to all the speakers instead of one cone trying to reproduce all frequencies in a time multiplexed fashion.
This is why if you were to drive a 1985-1990 Corvette with a Bose sound system, you would be surprised to realize that it only has four 4inch speakers in the car, but can produce bass levels under 50Hz at 100 Watts. This is because each channel in the Corvette is isolated for mid and upper end frequencies, since they are direction, but lower end frequencies are distributed equally to all four speakers at once, giving a greater frequency range, and the ability to produce heart stopping bass comparable to having a 10-12in dedicated sub woofer in the car.
These years of Corvettes used the Bose array technology speaker technology, and quite well. In fact so well, that they had to constrain the bass response in the 1991 and newer Corvettes because the 1985-1990 models produced so much low level Bass that the largest demographic for GM Corvette buyer (45-55 Men) complained of the sound system having too much bass, even with the bass control turned all the way down on the system. (If you have doubt, talk to a Corvette enthusiast that owned Corvettes in these years like myself.)
Now as the poster incorrectly assumed, I did not, nor imply that the 802 speakers produced below 55Hz sound levels, nor can they reproduce above 16,000Hz either. That is why can add a low level 'sub woofer' or series of low level speakers to the system, in addition to tweeter level speakers for full range reproduction. The 802 speakers are designed for high dB in the middle spectrum, although 55Hz is a fairly low level of bass for most people that use these speakers, considering most home speakers cannot accurately reproduce sound below 75Hz without distortion at HIGH dB levels.
As for the fact that my speakers could shatter glass, it is true; my home theater has the wattage output of some concert venues.
Now, why the above poster's attack of the Bose technology has ANYTHING to do with the fact that Mac Laptops have crappy sounding speakers is beyond me.
There are PC laptops out there, and in fact in my hands right now that can produce small boom box levels of sound, and in most circumstances carrying extra speakers with you to watch a DVD or do a presentation is simply not necessary.
If people could only hear the difference between some of JBL or Harman/kardon designed speaker systems
I can't help but notice in all of your posts that you have steadfastly avoided mentioning exactly what laptop this is, or how you get such hardware cheaper than, say, a powerbook. I think you're full of shit. No, scratch that, I *know* you're full of shit.
I think you don't have a clue about what technology is out there, or maybe even a clue about technology. And here, I can prove that your *thinking* is full of shit...
--Toshiba 5105-S608 This is the old Laptop I was referring to, Manufactured in Spring of 2002. We bought several at the time for one of our graphics departments, the 1600x1200 display is kind of a nice luxury for Graphic Designers - I guess Apple doesn't go for the Graphic Designer Market anymore. =) You can go look up the specs on it yourself, even for being over two years old, it has features that Mac Notebooks are just now getting or still don't have.
The newer Laptop I was referring to we just got in for some of our executives that work out of the office.
They are the Sager NP 8790 - although some of the ones we ordered we customized differently, a couple of executives wanted the 3.4ghz EE for example instead of the non EE 3.4ghz.
And I did mis-mention two of the specs on this model, it only supports 2GB of RAM and has the ATI 9700 with 256mb of RAM, the ATI 9800 is an upcoming option that our IT department decided not to wait for.
And yes they came standard with the 7200 Hitachi Hard Drives, and yes have Dual Layer DVD writers, and yes were under $2700 delivered.
http://www.sagernotebook.com/pages/notebooks/pro du ct2.cfm?ProductType=8790&SubType=S
Also if you check the specifications on this laptop, you will see it has all the 'touted' Mac features, and also several other features I didn't mention that are not available on ANY Mac Laptop. Like Built in Web Cams, and optional RAID 0,1 slot for second hard drives just to name a couple.
if you really think it's possible to use a laptop lcd screen at a beach, or that you won't destroy that thing in.23 seconds by getting sand in it, you have never been to a beach in your life.
I live a block from the beach in San Diego, I would bet I spend more time on the beach with my laptop than most people probably use them in normal environments.
And yes the Verizon 3G wireless internet on the Beach here makes working from the beach quite nice as well (although we have had rain the past few days).
you should check it out, they have these things called 'girls' there. also you can get a 'tan'.
Well, some of us already have 'girls', and often like to spend time at the beach with friends listening to music, watching a movie at night, you know, doing social things.
I'm sorry that you are going to the beach by yourself.
Oh, as for the screen being readable, even my 2002 Toshiba screen is PLENTY visible on the beach, I have been using it there for over two years now. =)
(But it is one of the first Theater high contrast screens released in notebooks, so again, it already has the display quality some of the other brands and Apples are just now getting)
Good answers, just because your laptop has crappy sound, you are going to try and knock other laptops with higher level sound systems.
I don't have to take external speakers with my Laptops, and yes they are loud enough speakers with quality, I have even used one of the laptops by itself in a Dance Hall one night for a party.
As for your mass movement of air argument, you either are forgetting or are not bright enough to understand chamber porting to increase throw and air movement from smaller speakers.
And BTW I do have BOSE speakers at home.
The BOSE speakers in my house are a 'actively' monitored variation of the newer 802 series, and can each handle output in the 1000s of Watts. They are in my theater room, and could literally break glass in my house.
Go poo poo Bose technology to someone that doesn't have a clue. The low end Bose technology is good for what it is, but their high end systems are still highly regarded in the music and theater industry.
Oh, and BTW, the Bose 802 speakers that can do 20Hz with 1000watts are each a series of 4inch cones using an active monitor 'collaborative' system to reproduce deep levels of bass with a very short throw distance.
But again, you poo poo audiophiles and people that actually know a little bit about this technology.
Most of the other stuff can be had from Dell or Alienware, just barely, for around $3200. I wasn't able to find a system that actually had the 3.4GHz CPU + that video card + that drive + the flash card slot but I'm not willing to spend hours and hours googling for it. I'll assume that it's out there and that I'm just not looking hard enough.
However, I have recently spent some time shopping for a new laptop hard disk. The 10000 rpm ATA/133 laptop drive is either bullshit, or the world's best kept secret. According to many many web sites that do hardware reviews, Hitachi's 7200rpm 7K60 is still the fastest laptop drive out there, and it's ATA/100.
First the 10000rpm HDs are new, Seagate is the first to a have a shipping model. However, the performance of the Hitachi 7200rpm drives are showing that even a 7200rpm drive in notebooks can offer almost TWICE the performance of other 5400rpm notebook Hard Drives. It is too bad that Apple only offers the slower 5400rpm drives in their notebooks.
--Toshiba 5105-S608 This is the old Laptop I was referring to, Manufactured in Spring of 2002. We bought several at the time for one of our graphics departments, the 1600x1200 display is kind of a nice luxury for Graphic Designers - I guess Apple doesn't go for the Graphic Designer Market anymore. =) You can go look up the specs on it yourself, even for being over two years old, it has features that Mac Notebooks are just now getting or still don't have.
The newer Laptop I was referring to we just got in for some of our executives that work out of the office.
They are the Sager NP 8790 - although some of the ones we ordered we customized differently, a couple of executives wanted the 3.4ghz EE for example instead of the non EE 3.4ghz.
And I did mis-mention two of the specs on this model, it only supports 2GB of RAM and has the ATI 9700 with 256mb of RAM, the ATI 9800 is an upcoming option that our IT department decided not to wait for.
And yes they came standard with the 7200 Hitachi Hard Drives, and yes have Dual Layer DVD writers, and yes were under $2700 delivered.
http://www.sagernotebook.com/pages/notebooks/pro du ct2.cfm?ProductType=8790&SubType=S
Also if you check the specifications on this laptop, you will see it has all the 'touted' Mac features, and also several other features I didn't mention that are not available on ANY Mac Laptop. Like Built in Web Cams, and optional RAID 0,1 slot for second hard drives just to name a couple.
But these are not the ONLY brand of laptops like this, nor are they rare. We chose Sager because of a strong reputation we have had with them in the past.
Do your own searches, they are many out there from ASUS and many other manufacturers...
BTW, the 64bit AMD Laptops we have are the ones with the 4GB RAM limit.
You can't get a "true subwoofer" on any laptop. Physics says so, and you can't argue with physics.
Except if a laptop has a separate speaker that allows it to accurately reproduce sounds below the 100Hz level specifically, then most audiophiles would consider it a 'real' sub-woofer.
And if you have ever been in a hotel, or using your laptop to provide audio/video entertainment in any noisy environment, it is nice to be able to have rich sound from the laptop that is loud enough for guest to hear and have it sound like it was a mini-boom box and not have to worry about having extra speakers with you, kind of the whole 'laptop' concept.
I wouldn't trade my harman/kardon sound system in any of my laptops for regular laptop speakers, nor Apple laptop speakers.
Would you believe some people actually use their laptops for Audio & Video entertainment, since they have DVD players and can actually do 'multi-media' all in one unit.
Maybe you are used to... Hey everybody, lets watch a movie or listen to music at the beach, I have brought 25 sets of headphones.
VGA 800x600? Parallel and serial ports? Don't forget the floppy drive, Apple's don't have those either. Or turbo buttons that switch an LED number on the case to a different LED number.
Also on a Apple Laptop, you can't get a 1600x1200 display, Ultra ATA/133, True Subwoofer Sound System, Remote Control, Universal Flash Card reader.... oh wait, I'm comparing my Laptop I bought in Spring of 2002. (Which is also legacy free and has no serial or parallel ports only USB and firewire, and can power up from completely off to full network connectivy and desktop in less than 3 seconds.)
I actually should compare one of my new ones... Also on a Apple Laptop you can't get a 7200 or 10000rpm HD, a 9800 ATI graphic controller with 256mb of Video RAM, a built in 10-key full size keyboard instead of wasting the space, a Duel Layer DVD Writer, 3.4ghz Processor with Hyper-threading, up to 4GB of RAM, Remote with built in TV and TIVO type recording system, PC3200 400mhz dual channel RAM...
Really do I need to go further? Now why don't you offer your explanations of why you wouldn't need any of these features, just as you were making fun of the post that stated why they didn't need any of the Mac features... I imagine you probably won't, because if you could get these features in your IBook or PowerBook, you would take them and think they are really neat and worth having.
Oh, and BTW, both of these laptops cost less than even the low end Mac models in their respective class when they were released, let alone the Models that come close to even matching these features.
And ironically features that PC users have taken for granted on laptops for years now still are 'unavailable' on any Mac Laptop. Just like back in the late 90s, I was horrified that the stylish and 'in' Apple notebooks didn't even have stereo speakers, what is Apple thinking sometimes?
(PS. I'm not trying to dismiss your post as one, because I am hitting on points you didn't even bring up, but this is more of a wake response to several posts in this thread that are just incredible.
Apple has great notebooks, but that doesn't mean they always have 'all' the latest and greatest features or they have the 'best' of anything, they are just great notebook computers, just like there are many great non-Apple notebooks out there with cool features and designs.)
So get over the bashing and playing whose notebook is better, OK?
If you can't be bothered to respond to the points made, and instead insist on wandering off in completely irrelevant directions (like psychology, for crying out loud) then I decline to continue the conversation.
It is crazy for you to continually insist that 'computers are different', when interaction with them is no different or should be no different than any other types of psychological interactions in our lives.
If we all followed your line of thoughts that they are 'special' and should be outside of our world of natural language, and enforce rules on us, then computers would still be number crunchers that had NO humanistic interactions.
I hate to tell you this, but just because computers don't have full AI, don't mean they are not a part of our interaction processes each day and a part of our psychological interaction with them and the rest of the world.
I just emailed a client a set of documents, sure I could have named them 'file1,file2,file3' or 'InsuranceFormsFromBlankCompanyThatNeedToBeSignedA ndReturnedASAP', but I think they appreciate that the file they got was 'Insurance Forms from Blank Company that Need to be Signed and Returned ASAP'.
This is a further example that baffles me that you have not thought past your own interaction with your personal files on your computer; do you have no outside interaction through your computer? This last example is not only our own psychological interaction with the computer, but using it as a communication tool for psychological interaction with OTHER PEOPLE, and hence the reason it should not be constrained to non-humanist rules.
You either get it or don't, and I'm now starting to be afraid you not going to...
Ok, fine. From now on, you'll be required to select your files by entering raw jpeg information as the file descriptor. Delighted to think that's I've improved your human interaction.
Ok, you're just being silly, unless you draw pictures to communicate with all your friends instead of speaking or writing.
Besides, computers DO use graphic thumbnails for video and images already, so I don't have to enter this information.
Really? I would enjoy watching you write a paragraph-as-filename for every file on your system, removing all traces of the original, reasonable filenames, and then I would enjoy even more watching you try to use your newly ruined filesystem in any kind of effective manner. There is a difference between a concise, easily used and parsed filename and a paragraph of difficult to parse and difficult to discriminate hand waving, regardless of your ability to see it or not.
It isn't so much about how I name files, but how the computer is ALLOWED to name files. When I drag a link to a website, it is nice to see (SourceForge.net Project Info - FlexWiki) as opposed to (SourceForge.net) or (SourceForge.net%20Project%20Info%20-%20FlexWiki).
You need to really think this through a little bit more, trust me.
Well, if you think that, you're on your own. I never said that, or implied it.
This was whole basis of your argument if drawn to a conclusion. I apologize if you were not able to think the process out further to see the extent of what your arguing for implied.
Yes. Exactly why I maintain that we should never have changed the no-spaces-in-filenames convention. Now that we've changed it, late in the game, users encounter difficulties, programmers encounter difficulties, operating systems encounter difficulties, and reliability is down across the board. Spaces are completely foreign to reasonable filenames, and to the original filename concept.
Again you think this is a massive problem to even take the time to argue it this far. 99.9% of the people using computers NEVER have to type a filename, so whether it has spaces or not means nothing to them but readability and ease of use.
Programmers should know better than to name their projects, packages or DLLs with spaces in them. However if they do, I know of very few OSes that would have a problem with it. It is just a matter of ease of access to their projects and again in most graphical compile environments, this is so abstract from the programmer or user, spaces don't cause any problems are even mean anything to them.
And as for 'operating system encounter difficulties', you can't be serious can you? In the windows World, even with the original 1993 NT, and Win95, spaces have NEVER been a problem to the OS, 99% of all *nix file systems do not have a problem with spaces anymore, even old pre-System 10 Mac OSes have never had a problem with spaces.
What OS are you using that has difficulties with spaces in filenames?
At this point you are either really silly, or a stubborn person that is going to argue something as OLD and trivial as this without even asking yourself if you are really thinking it through.
Technology is about progression, and part of the progression of technology is that computers and technological devices move to work in a more humanistic fashion, rather than humans moving to work with artificial rules imposed by fools like you.
Take a Psychology 101 class or buy a book on technology interaction. Geesh...
What you are trying to do here is draw a perceptual equivalance (equivalence), between a paragraph sized text entity, which has one purpose, and a very tiny entity, the filename, which has a completely difrerent (different) purpose. There is no such equivalance (equivalence).
Filenames are referential information for an object data store. The more descriptive any form of referential information for any item of context, whether it is a block of binary or a thought is a good thing for human interaction; especially when dealing with abstract constructs in a computer environment.
For you to try to define that a filename has some special significant difference from any other type of referential or descriptive thought in human language is either far reaching, or a grossly ignorant assessment of language and referential conventions of information.
The difference in the last is that a space is one of the most natural breaks in human language syntax and to ignore that role in the conversion to computer syntax is not sensible. Or worse. And sure enough, it causes lots and lots of problems, too. Not to mention extra work - both for the user, who has to quote such names, and for the software, which has to parse syntactically wasted characters out (quotes or equivalant delimiters.)
It is very apparent that you have not worked with computer users in test or work environments to contrast the benefits and disadvantages of each.
Having worked in this capacity, the first point of contention with your above statements comes from your statement, extra work - both for the user, who has to quote such names, and for the software,.
Most computer users, yes most, do not have to deal with filenames in a command line or type requested interface. 99% of computer users today work in graphical interfaces, and effectively manage their documents through this interface. It is only when you enter the realm of the developers, programmers, and techs that you will find users that work even work with filenames in a command line or type requested interface.
Now for the these 'special' users that do use a command line or type requested interface for accessing files, there is NOTHING preventing them from storing their data WITHOUT SPACES. There is NO rule that forces them to use spaces or upper or lower case text even.
To contrast this loss of productivity I would like for you to journey with me to a typical work or test environment. How much difference in wasted time do you think there is between the infrequent user that has to use a typed interface for filenames and either hit the TAB key or add quotes to the filename and a user that cannot find a document because of an obscure filename? Just imagine the differences in the computer searching for the document, and even the user searching through similar named files trying to locate something that would have been a lot easier for them and the computer to search for and find if the filename was in a more natural language and used spaces to delaminate words as people do in the real world.
If you have been in test or work environments and truly been overseeing the usability improvements of introducing natural language filenames, with spaces, to users, you would not have the opinion of how awful spaces are and how they waste time.
The second point of contention is with your assessment that dealing with spaces in filenames is something hard for software to handle. Maybe back in 70s this could be argued that it was hard for software to do. However considering this is many years later, 99.9% of all software APIs, OSes, and development environments inherently provide tools to easily manage spaces without even a second thought. If your software has problems with spaces in filenames, maybe it is time you thought about seeing if they have a new version of WordWriter or WordStar.
Imagine a natural language parser. You type, "computer pleas
This is brilliant why don't we just remove spaces from everything we type because you are too lazy to quote a filename or press the tab key and let the command line interface do it for you automatically. Why don't we just remove spaces from everything we do, maybe the reason we haven't is because no matter whether you are using cute underlines or capitalizing each word in the sentence, it is still harder to read and take more time for the natural processing of information in the brain to recognize things quickly. I for one just think you are lazy or really simple minded to believe that using naming conventions without natural language syntax like spaces is going to be productive to anyone, except maybe fools like that haven't learned an easier way to navigate or process documents or information than from a command line.
So which one of these was the easiest for you or anyone to read? Exactly my point. Just like when a computer is storing the name of a video, a song, or anything that might have need for
How feasible is online gaming on one of these cards?
Depends on the network, card, and game...
I have a Verizon 3G card...
In San Diego or DC where they have the full 3G implementation, my download is faster than DSL driving down the road or at the beach.
I can also play real-time FPS when in my home city of San Diego, no problem.
Outside of San Diego or DC, I get the standard 144kps connection, and real time gaming is not fast enough for FPS type of games.
However, if you are playing something like Star Wars Galaxies or other online role playing game, even outside the 3G cities, it works fine, still better than dialup.
Like the above poster said, this stuff isn't new, not even in the US. I have had my verizon card for months and have been getting better than DSL speeds on average no matter where I am in the San Diego area. I have only tested it at the airport in DC, but it worked just as fast there as well.
As for regular coverage, I just did a road trip from San Diego to Reno, and after leaving LA the radio stations on the car started dropping off.
So I turned on the laptop, tuned into one of my favorite radio stations on the internet and listened all the way from LA to Reno with only a couple of drop offs, and it reconnected within secs.
It was ironic that out in the middle of nowhere in the valley, we could only get static on the car radio, but had full internet service and could listen to radio over the Verizon card.
was not trying to flame MS for their past actions - however Microsoft started out with a fairly clean codebase for both Win2k and WinXP. Given that, it seems bad that such vulnerabilities keep coming up.
Not sure where you get it was a 'clean' code base. Win2k and XP are based on 1992 NT technology. Although NT is a strong OS technology, it was not new in Win2k or XP, far from new.
In fact, this is one of the reason Microsoft waited so long to move their consumer level OSes to the NT base, they wanted more maturity in the NT core technologies.
As for the 'Buffer Checking' debate...
Everyone hear does not either program much or get the concepts of 'just buffer checking'. If Microsoft would have had reliable compiler technology back in 2001 that they have now with the creation of the new Visual Studio and 'managed code' compilers, XP would have been compiled with an extra layer of buffer checking.
Instead, this was left at the coding level, just as it has been in the *nix world for a LONG LONG time.
With the new compiler technologies Microsoft was able to add compiler level checking for many exploits and flaws, hence adding a new layer of protection around the existing XP and 2003 Server code base.
A standard feature of Motif widgets is tabbing between them
Yeah, and tabbing between widgets has been standard on Windows since version 1.x back in the 80s, your point?
This is NOT ABOUT tabbing between widgets, it is about being able to fully navigate hyperlinks in an HTML document without a mouse. I.E. using the browser contents as if they were widgets...
Everyone here complains about the software patents, but yet the company that gets sued 99% of the time over patents is Microsoft, and how many times have they sued (other than to protect themselves) over their patents?
When you are a big target like Microsoft, I would be putting a patent on everything my company came out with until the patent laws are fixed.
Just like FAT, do you honestly thing Microsoft would have patented it if they hadn't started getting sued over even the simpleest and stupid patents. They could have patented FAT years and years ago, but it wasn'y until this last year that they did.
As you said patents are an abomination.
Re:Some of us were here when lynx was released ...
on
More Microsoft Patents
·
· Score: 1
1991
Really 1991? And what year did HTTP and HTML come to pass, let alone become a standard?
If you are going to make this stuff up, you need to at least look at the dates you are using and try to make them realistic.
Because something like, "My TRS-80 had the use of the TAB key browsing the web back in 1983 would sound just about as nuts."
Actually, I think it has been a standard part of graphical web clients for a long time. Tab and shift tab to any particular form entry, button or link, press space bar or enter to follow it.
Actually IE 3 was the first browser that allowed keyboard Navigation, and was one of the 'new' features of IE3 that gave it a lead on all the existing browsers of the time.
Just because it is COMMON in all broswers today doesn't meant that microsoft isn't the first software company to implement the idea in a Browser.
Which I am sure will anger a lot people here, but they were the first browser to have keyboard navigation features.
Some of us that were here when IE3 was released, remember this, and how handy it was at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
NT was portable to other 32bit platforms, but it most definately wasn't 64bit clean. The port to the Alpha platform had to use a 32bit emulation feature of the DEC compiler and a lot of the NT code had to be rewritten to work on IA64/AMD64 in 64bit mode.
Aside from that, MacOS has always been a 32bit os, the first cpu it ran on was the 32bit 68000, tho it's true Apple took their time porting it to PPC and ran most of the OS under 68k emulation for a few years..
Aside from that, it's funny to note that other companies came out with 64bit os's before ms came out with a 32bit
What in the heck are you smoking?
MacOS has always been a 32bit OS? Really, and it had things like 32bit memory addressing in what version, and moved to pre-emptive multi-tasking in what version?
Even System 9 was not able to do these things, even though the PowerPC processors they ran on were fully capable of it.
The 68000 was a 32bit internal architecture with a 16bit bus. What to debate this? I had an original Mac and AtariST with this CPU in both of them.
As for the "NT was portable to other 32bit platforms, but it most definately wasn't 64bit clean. The port to the Alpha platform had to use a 32bit emulation feature of the DEC compiler and a lot of the NT code had to be rewritten to work on IA64/AMD64 in 64bit mode"
Um, NO, and NO... NT was running on the DEC Alpha and supported not only internal 64bit processing but even external 64bit memory addressing, with compatibility to the lower end Alpha address range. GO LOOK IT UP.
NT was also fully ported the Alpha and running in FULL 64bit mode on the Alpha for Windows 2000. We still have a guy here running Windows 2000 Beta on his on Alpha, in 64bit mode.
If you think the port for NT was so HARD, why was WindowsXP for the Itanium64 released only a couple of months after WindowsXP was released? Um, because it wasn't maybe?
As for the 32bit 'compatibility' of the Alpha compiler, you need to go look this up to. The only thing I can even get close to what you are referencing is the Emulation Layer Alpha designed to allow 32bit x86 software to run on the NT version of Alpha. NT was not compiled on a 32bit Compiler for the Alpha, nor with 32bit emulation features (in a compiler?) for the Alpha or it would not have had access to the 64bit memory ranges or been able to processing everything in Native 64bit modes on the Alpha.
And here I thought I heard everything, Geesh...
That's why PS2 typically gets big-name 3rd-party titles first (GTA 4), and ports slowly trickle out a year later
A year or two ago this statement would maybe have been a little more true, however since my fiancé works in the retail gaming industry, I can assure people this is more the exception than the norm today.
And the XBOX now has a definite edge on third party game releases. Most games are released PC/XBOX and followed up with PS2 or GameCube versions if they are even made.
There was a day when the PS2 was the target platform, and the other console titles trickled out, but now the PC is usually the target platform because of the high level of graphical performance a PC can do today. So the games are geared for the PC level of high quality textures and performance, with the console versions all being scaled down for performance and quality that the console is capable of with a good frame rate.
And the XBOX benefits greatly from this, since most PC games are DirectX and Windows based. So the XBOX is the console to see non-contract specific games first.
Refreshing to see a post from someone that isn't a moron or zealot and actually remembers NT wasn't x86 technology.
I was going to post along the lines of what you said. Thank you...
Interesting to see that your post is already modded down. Either people don't get it, don't want to get it, or maybe just because you forgot the mandatory MS bashing requirement and didn't put a 'M$ Sux' at the bottom of your post. lol
Anyway, whether people like it or not, your post is on track, this guy must be on crack to think that games would any easier to port to a Mac just because the new XBox hardware is similar.
And the scary sub context of all this, the original post is nothing but a plea for Games for the Mac, without realizing that Apple doesn't have a great graphical performance architecture for gaming. Apple, the mother of consumer level graphical computing, and they still have nothing for providing high end gaming performance.
People used to make fun of Microsoft when they wanted OpenGL to be more hardware optimized, and ended up going their own road with DirectX because of the OpenGL group's reluctance to implement many of the DirectX abilities.
Now you have Windows that has a way for games to access not only video, but all multimedia aspects of the hardware in a way that is hardware independent, but yet has a very small performance hit if any, anymore. And so people are still using Windows to play games on because of its great gaming performance, to the level that a console even came out of the great performance DirectX and Windows coupled with hardware allows, the XBOX.
And now you see other OS developers and companies still trying to emulate or recreate a set of technologies comparable to DirectX.
And Apple hasn't even as been so bold to create a DirectX technology for OSX, instead they are leaving it to OpenGL, which is only a video solution, that still lacks many of the hardware optimization concepts that are in DirectX.
I wish I had mod points this week...
it is a piece of cake porting windows games to linux. just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it 's not easy.
Really, I didn't realize DirectX on Linux was that advanced... =)
OpenGL to OpenGL is the only way games port easily between the two, and porting from DirectX to OpenGL is not a simple port. DirectX has many features that OpenGL has yet to implement or adopt.
if microsoft does a good job with the OS on the next xbox
.NET frameworks for the games, and even the DirectX implementation. So not sure what you mean by 'the OS on the next xbox', the OS is already done, has been for a while.
It is still going to be WindowsNT, just like the last XBox... Basically WindowsXP, and using
Kills me that geeks here either don't know or forget that WindowsNT was a real 32bit OS on PowerPCs before Apple's system software was... By SEVERAL years even.
NT is portable, AS portable as any OS or *nix, and it always was, and always will be. That was one of the design conditions for NT that Microsoft will never remove.
OK so that's three features you happened to "mis-mention". That kind of undermines your argument when you're trying to explain how behind the leading edge Apple is... your own best example doesn't have those features either.
I did search for about a half hour before posting the grandparent post. I think I would stick with Dell or Alienware personally because I don't mind spending a bit more for support and some assurance of quality from a known vendor. I'm also surprised that IBM, who once carried the torch of very expensive but also very full-featured laptops, doesn't appear to have anything in this class. Oh well.
The Seagate drive is very real, maybe you need to learn how to search a little better. There are already announce products for in not only in notebooks, but also in small footprint RAID network file server solutions, and this isn't even NEW news.
As for implying that I intentionally fabricated something by quoting the specs from two different systems together, is either really silly or just reaching to substantiate your point. The point remains that the SPECS I stated were real, just not on the unit I stated they were from. This invalidates what? Apple still doesn't have either of these features or comperable features...
As for the name brands, Sager is a larger NAME brand than Alienware, and has been around for a long time.
Ironically Sager is the brand we chose because of dealing with them for several years, there are TONS of other BRAND names that you might not have heard of either, that also have comperable model Computers.
Even HP has the ZD7000 series which is somewhat in this class, although not quite as feature rich as the Sager, but still a leap ahead of the Apple 17" Powerbook. Is HP brand name enough for you?
You are admiting you know very little about the subject if you STILL can't find reference to ANY laptop size 10,000 rpm drive, let alone the Seagate, and that you have no idea even who Sager is, nor realize that tons of PC laptop companies have comperable models to the one I stated, even HP.
So remind me, if you know so little, why did you even bother to post in the first place?
However, I shouldn't be so harsh, as you at least realized that 1600x1200 for graphic designers is a good thing, even in a 15" form factor. - Especially if it were implemented with the Apple GUI that is less bitmap rendered and would scale wonderfully on the higher resolution display, I truly wish Apple would get their head out of the sand and instead of trying to impress us with 17", they would impress us with 17" with more pixels per inch than the average notebook.
How are you going to connect all these hard drives? You mentioned software raid... If you're planning to use the IDE on the motherboard... A motherboard that old might not recognize that large a HD. Got Raid Cards?
Maybe this is just a little to weird, but, why is the mainboard age (BIOS/Recognition) of the Hard Drives even an issue?
At the very least the Mainboard (if way old, say like in the Pentium 166MHz chipset days), it would still see the drives as a 8gb Hard Drive at the very least.
Once the BIOS boots the OS, is not the OS responsible for 'seeing' the hard drives?
Heck, even the driver architecture of Windows NT(XP) has no regard to what the BIOS thinks the hard drives are.
As for the poster's original question...
Yes, Software RAID 5 works well, can be just as reliable as any Hardware RAID 5, and in most cases even have comparable performance, even in high end usage servers.
I can personally attest that even back in the old NT days, that we ran Software RAID 5 on 200 MHz Pentiums with 32mb and 64mb of RAM, with incredible performance and reliability.
Ignore the posters in other threads above telling you that need Mass amounts of RAM in a file server, this is only true if you are going to have tons of users hitting this server at the same time, if it is just a RAID 5 file server for the house or a small office environment, extra RAM isn't going to help much, especially if this server is going to be accessed via a network, the bandwidth is not going to out perform the speed of the Hard Drives or the RAID5, so the RAM, which would be used in a caching capacity would not be necessary or utilized.
Everyone here has an opinion, but the main thing to remember is, YES they all pretty much agree that Software RAID 5 is reliable, and do a little testing yourself, you will find any pitfalls that would be specific to your situation that others won't foresee.
Ok, for the people that think might be deceived into believing that the person that wrote the previous post actually knows what he is talking about, I will respond for clarification.
Bose 802 speakers are based on one of Bose's original speaker designs that made the BOSE name.
The later models of the 802 series of speakers are 'actively' monitored, the above poster can cite this term using whatever words he wants, but the system levels the sound distribution throughout the array to ensure that fidelity is preserved and distortion is almost impossible, even when producing high levels of output.
What the above poster fails to realize or mention when disputing the output ratings and design of the 802 speakers is that they can be chained, so in theory you could have several 802 stacked on each channel of your sound system, virtually giving you an infinite level of wattage.
So stacking two Mono configured Bose 802 speakers would give you 960W of output PER channel, and stacking 4 Bose 802 speakers would give you 1920W of output per channel.
Additionally the above poster tries to be misleading by stating that they are a ported design. They have enclosure porting, but do not have chamber porting, which is what the term porting is often referred to by people in the sound industry.
The Array technology is one of things that is somewhat unique about the Bose 802 and 901 in home speakers. This is what made the early BOSE technology unique and also allows the speakers to produce 'clearer' sound throughout the audible frequency range because it can distribute sound frequencies to all the speakers instead of one cone trying to reproduce all frequencies in a time multiplexed fashion.
This is why if you were to drive a 1985-1990 Corvette with a Bose sound system, you would be surprised to realize that it only has four 4inch speakers in the car, but can produce bass levels under 50Hz at 100 Watts. This is because each channel in the Corvette is isolated for mid and upper end frequencies, since they are direction, but lower end frequencies are distributed equally to all four speakers at once, giving a greater frequency range, and the ability to produce heart stopping bass comparable to having a 10-12in dedicated sub woofer in the car.
These years of Corvettes used the Bose array technology speaker technology, and quite well. In fact so well, that they had to constrain the bass response in the 1991 and newer Corvettes because the 1985-1990 models produced so much low level Bass that the largest demographic for GM Corvette buyer (45-55 Men) complained of the sound system having too much bass, even with the bass control turned all the way down on the system. (If you have doubt, talk to a Corvette enthusiast that owned Corvettes in these years like myself.)
Now as the poster incorrectly assumed, I did not, nor imply that the 802 speakers produced below 55Hz sound levels, nor can they reproduce above 16,000Hz either. That is why can add a low level 'sub woofer' or series of low level speakers to the system, in addition to tweeter level speakers for full range reproduction. The 802 speakers are designed for high dB in the middle spectrum, although 55Hz is a fairly low level of bass for most people that use these speakers, considering most home speakers cannot accurately reproduce sound below 75Hz without distortion at HIGH dB levels.
As for the fact that my speakers could shatter glass, it is true; my home theater has the wattage output of some concert venues.
Now, why the above poster's attack of the Bose technology has ANYTHING to do with the fact that Mac Laptops have crappy sounding speakers is beyond me.
There are PC laptops out there, and in fact in my hands right now that can produce small boom box levels of sound, and in most circumstances carrying extra speakers with you to watch a DVD or do a presentation is simply not necessary.
If people could only hear the difference between some of JBL or Harman/kardon designed speaker systems
I can't help but notice in all of your posts that you have steadfastly avoided mentioning exactly what laptop this is, or how you get such hardware cheaper than, say, a powerbook. I think you're full of shit. No, scratch that, I *know* you're full of shit.
o du ct2.cfm?ProductType=8790&SubType=S
I think you don't have a clue about what technology is out there, or maybe even a clue about technology. And here, I can prove that your *thinking* is full of shit...
--Toshiba 5105-S608
This is the old Laptop I was referring to, Manufactured in Spring of 2002. We bought several at the time for one of our graphics departments, the 1600x1200 display is kind of a nice luxury for Graphic Designers - I guess Apple doesn't go for the Graphic Designer Market anymore. =) You can go look up the specs on it yourself, even for being over two years old, it has features that Mac Notebooks are just now getting or still don't have.
The newer Laptop I was referring to we just got in for some of our executives that work out of the office.
They are the Sager NP 8790 - although some of the ones we ordered we customized differently, a couple of executives wanted the 3.4ghz EE for example instead of the non EE 3.4ghz.
And I did mis-mention two of the specs on this model, it only supports 2GB of RAM and has the ATI 9700 with 256mb of RAM, the ATI 9800 is an upcoming option that our IT department decided not to wait for.
And yes they came standard with the 7200 Hitachi Hard Drives, and yes have Dual Layer DVD writers, and yes were under $2700 delivered.
http://www.sagernotebook.com/pages/notebooks/pr
Also if you check the specifications on this laptop, you will see it has all the 'touted' Mac features, and also several other features I didn't mention that are not available on ANY Mac Laptop. Like Built in Web Cams, and optional RAID 0,1 slot for second hard drives just to name a couple.
if you really think it's possible to use a laptop lcd screen at a beach, or that you won't destroy that thing in .23 seconds by getting sand in it, you have never been to a beach in your life.
I live a block from the beach in San Diego, I would bet I spend more time on the beach with my laptop than most people probably use them in normal environments.
And yes the Verizon 3G wireless internet on the Beach here makes working from the beach quite nice as well (although we have had rain the past few days).
you should check it out, they have these things called 'girls' there. also you can get a 'tan'.
Well, some of us already have 'girls', and often like to spend time at the beach with friends listening to music, watching a movie at night, you know, doing social things.
I'm sorry that you are going to the beach by yourself.
Oh, as for the screen being readable, even my 2002 Toshiba screen is PLENTY visible on the beach, I have been using it there for over two years now. =)
(But it is one of the first Theater high contrast screens released in notebooks, so again, it already has the display quality some of the other brands and Apples are just now getting)
Good answers, just because your laptop has crappy sound, you are going to try and knock other laptops with higher level sound systems.
I don't have to take external speakers with my Laptops, and yes they are loud enough speakers with quality, I have even used one of the laptops by itself in a Dance Hall one night for a party.
As for your mass movement of air argument, you either are forgetting or are not bright enough to understand chamber porting to increase throw and air movement from smaller speakers.
And BTW I do have BOSE speakers at home.
The BOSE speakers in my house are a 'actively' monitored variation of the newer 802 series, and can each handle output in the 1000s of Watts. They are in my theater room, and could literally break glass in my house.
Go poo poo Bose technology to someone that doesn't have a clue. The low end Bose technology is good for what it is, but their high end systems are still highly regarded in the music and theater industry.
Oh, and BTW, the Bose 802 speakers that can do 20Hz with 1000watts are each a series of 4inch cones using an active monitor 'collaborative' system to reproduce deep levels of bass with a very short throw distance.
But again, you poo poo audiophiles and people that actually know a little bit about this technology.
Most of the other stuff can be had from Dell or Alienware, just barely, for around $3200. I wasn't able to find a system that actually had the 3.4GHz CPU + that video card + that drive + the flash card slot but I'm not willing to spend hours and hours googling for it. I'll assume that it's out there and that I'm just not looking hard enough.
o du ct2.cfm?ProductType=8790&SubType=S
However, I have recently spent some time shopping for a new laptop hard disk. The 10000 rpm ATA/133 laptop drive is either bullshit, or the world's best kept secret. According to many many web sites that do hardware reviews, Hitachi's 7200rpm 7K60 is still the fastest laptop drive out there, and it's ATA/100.
First the 10000rpm HDs are new, Seagate is the first to a have a shipping model. However, the performance of the Hitachi 7200rpm drives are showing that even a 7200rpm drive in notebooks can offer almost TWICE the performance of other 5400rpm notebook Hard Drives. It is too bad that Apple only offers the slower 5400rpm drives in their notebooks.
--Toshiba 5105-S608
This is the old Laptop I was referring to, Manufactured in Spring of 2002. We bought several at the time for one of our graphics departments, the 1600x1200 display is kind of a nice luxury for Graphic Designers - I guess Apple doesn't go for the Graphic Designer Market anymore. =) You can go look up the specs on it yourself, even for being over two years old, it has features that Mac Notebooks are just now getting or still don't have.
The newer Laptop I was referring to we just got in for some of our executives that work out of the office.
They are the Sager NP 8790 - although some of the ones we ordered we customized differently, a couple of executives wanted the 3.4ghz EE for example instead of the non EE 3.4ghz.
And I did mis-mention two of the specs on this model, it only supports 2GB of RAM and has the ATI 9700 with 256mb of RAM, the ATI 9800 is an upcoming option that our IT department decided not to wait for.
And yes they came standard with the 7200 Hitachi Hard Drives, and yes have Dual Layer DVD writers, and yes were under $2700 delivered.
http://www.sagernotebook.com/pages/notebooks/pr
Also if you check the specifications on this laptop, you will see it has all the 'touted' Mac features, and also several other features I didn't mention that are not available on ANY Mac Laptop. Like Built in Web Cams, and optional RAID 0,1 slot for second hard drives just to name a couple.
But these are not the ONLY brand of laptops like this, nor are they rare. We chose Sager because of a strong reputation we have had with them in the past.
Do your own searches, they are many out there from ASUS and many other manufacturers...
BTW, the 64bit AMD Laptops we have are the ones with the 4GB RAM limit.
You can't get a "true subwoofer" on any laptop. Physics says so, and you can't argue with physics.
Except if a laptop has a separate speaker that allows it to accurately reproduce sounds below the 100Hz level specifically, then most audiophiles would consider it a 'real' sub-woofer.
And if you have ever been in a hotel, or using your laptop to provide audio/video entertainment in any noisy environment, it is nice to be able to have rich sound from the laptop that is loud enough for guest to hear and have it sound like it was a mini-boom box and not have to worry about having extra speakers with you, kind of the whole 'laptop' concept.
I wouldn't trade my harman/kardon sound system in any of my laptops for regular laptop speakers, nor Apple laptop speakers.
Would you believe some people actually use their laptops for Audio & Video entertainment, since they have DVD players and can actually do 'multi-media' all in one unit.
Maybe you are used to...
Hey everybody, lets watch a movie or listen to music at the beach, I have brought 25 sets of headphones.
LOL
a built in 10-key full size keyboard
I think I've worked out why your new PC laptop was cheap...
Yeah, kind of forgot the '&' sign in that line...
For all the people that couldn't figure it out for themselves =)
The line should have read...
'a built in 10-key & full size keyboard'
VGA 800x600? Parallel and serial ports? Don't forget the floppy drive, Apple's don't have those either. Or turbo buttons that switch an LED number on the case to a different LED number.
Also on a Apple Laptop, you can't get a 1600x1200 display, Ultra ATA/133, True Subwoofer Sound System, Remote Control, Universal Flash Card reader.... oh wait, I'm comparing my Laptop I bought in Spring of 2002. (Which is also legacy free and has no serial or parallel ports only USB and firewire, and can power up from completely off to full network connectivy and desktop in less than 3 seconds.)
I actually should compare one of my new ones...
Also on a Apple Laptop you can't get a 7200 or 10000rpm HD, a 9800 ATI graphic controller with 256mb of Video RAM, a built in 10-key full size keyboard instead of wasting the space, a Duel Layer DVD Writer, 3.4ghz Processor with Hyper-threading, up to 4GB of RAM, Remote with built in TV and TIVO type recording system, PC3200 400mhz dual channel RAM...
Really do I need to go further? Now why don't you offer your explanations of why you wouldn't need any of these features, just as you were making fun of the post that stated why they didn't need any of the Mac features... I imagine you probably won't, because if you could get these features in your IBook or PowerBook, you would take them and think they are really neat and worth having.
Oh, and BTW, both of these laptops cost less than even the low end Mac models in their respective class when they were released, let alone the Models that come close to even matching these features.
And ironically features that PC users have taken for granted on laptops for years now still are 'unavailable' on any Mac Laptop. Just like back in the late 90s, I was horrified that the stylish and 'in' Apple notebooks didn't even have stereo speakers, what is Apple thinking sometimes?
(PS. I'm not trying to dismiss your post as one, because I am hitting on points you didn't even bring up, but this is more of a wake response to several posts in this thread that are just incredible.
Apple has great notebooks, but that doesn't mean they always have 'all' the latest and greatest features or they have the 'best' of anything, they are just great notebook computers, just like there are many great non-Apple notebooks out there with cool features and designs.)
So get over the bashing and playing whose notebook is better, OK?
If you can't be bothered to respond to the points made, and instead insist on wandering off in completely irrelevant directions (like psychology, for crying out loud) then I decline to continue the conversation.
A ndReturnedASAP', but I think they appreciate that the file they got was 'Insurance Forms from Blank Company that Need to be Signed and Returned ASAP'.
It is crazy for you to continually insist that 'computers are different', when interaction with them is no different or should be no different than any other types of psychological interactions in our lives.
If we all followed your line of thoughts that they are 'special' and should be outside of our world of natural language, and enforce rules on us, then computers would still be number crunchers that had NO humanistic interactions.
I hate to tell you this, but just because computers don't have full AI, don't mean they are not a part of our interaction processes each day and a part of our psychological interaction with them and the rest of the world.
I just emailed a client a set of documents, sure I could have named them 'file1,file2,file3' or 'InsuranceFormsFromBlankCompanyThatNeedToBeSigned
This is a further example that baffles me that you have not thought past your own interaction with your personal files on your computer; do you have no outside interaction through your computer? This last example is not only our own psychological interaction with the computer, but using it as a communication tool for psychological interaction with OTHER PEOPLE, and hence the reason it should not be constrained to non-humanist rules.
You either get it or don't, and I'm now starting to be afraid you not going to...
Ok, fine. From now on, you'll be required to select your files by entering raw jpeg information as the file descriptor. Delighted to think that's I've improved your human interaction.
.
Ok, you're just being silly, unless you draw pictures to communicate with all your friends instead of speaking or writing.
Besides, computers DO use graphic thumbnails for video and images already, so I don't have to enter this information.
Really? I would enjoy watching you write a paragraph-as-filename for every file on your system, removing all traces of the original, reasonable filenames, and then I would enjoy even more watching you try to use your newly ruined filesystem in any kind of effective manner. There is a difference between a concise, easily used and parsed filename and a paragraph of difficult to parse and difficult to discriminate hand waving, regardless of your ability to see it or not.
It isn't so much about how I name files, but how the computer is ALLOWED to name files. When I drag a link to a website, it is nice to see (SourceForge.net Project Info - FlexWiki) as opposed to (SourceForge.net) or (SourceForge.net%20Project%20Info%20-%20FlexWiki)
You need to really think this through a little bit more, trust me.
Well, if you think that, you're on your own. I never said that, or implied it.
This was whole basis of your argument if drawn to a conclusion. I apologize if you were not able to think the process out further to see the extent of what your arguing for implied.
Yes. Exactly why I maintain that we should never have changed the no-spaces-in-filenames convention. Now that we've changed it, late in the game, users encounter difficulties, programmers encounter difficulties, operating systems encounter difficulties, and reliability is down across the board. Spaces are completely foreign to reasonable filenames, and to the original filename concept.
Again you think this is a massive problem to even take the time to argue it this far. 99.9% of the people using computers NEVER have to type a filename, so whether it has spaces or not means nothing to them but readability and ease of use.
Programmers should know better than to name their projects, packages or DLLs with spaces in them. However if they do, I know of very few OSes that would have a problem with it. It is just a matter of ease of access to their projects and again in most graphical compile environments, this is so abstract from the programmer or user, spaces don't cause any problems are even mean anything to them.
And as for 'operating system encounter difficulties', you can't be serious can you? In the windows World, even with the original 1993 NT, and Win95, spaces have NEVER been a problem to the OS, 99% of all *nix file systems do not have a problem with spaces anymore, even old pre-System 10 Mac OSes have never had a problem with spaces.
What OS are you using that has difficulties with spaces in filenames?
At this point you are either really silly, or a stubborn person that is going to argue something as OLD and trivial as this without even asking yourself if you are really thinking it through.
Technology is about progression, and part of the progression of technology is that computers and technological devices move to work in a more humanistic fashion, rather than humans moving to work with artificial rules imposed by fools like you.
Take a Psychology 101 class or buy a book on technology interaction. Geesh...
Oh what fun, where to begin...
What you are trying to do here is draw a perceptual equivalance (equivalence), between a paragraph sized text entity, which has one purpose, and a very tiny entity, the filename, which has a completely difrerent (different) purpose. There is no such equivalance (equivalence).
Filenames are referential information for an object data store. The more descriptive any form of referential information for any item of context, whether it is a block of binary or a thought is a good thing for human interaction; especially when dealing with abstract constructs in a computer environment.
For you to try to define that a filename has some special significant difference from any other type of referential or descriptive thought in human language is either far reaching, or a grossly ignorant assessment of language and referential conventions of information.
The difference in the last is that a space is one of the most natural breaks in human language syntax and to ignore that role in the conversion to computer syntax is not sensible. Or worse. And sure enough, it causes lots and lots of problems, too. Not to mention extra work - both for the user, who has to quote such names, and for the software, which has to parse syntactically wasted characters out (quotes or equivalant delimiters.)
It is very apparent that you have not worked with computer users in test or work environments to contrast the benefits and disadvantages of each.
Having worked in this capacity, the first point of contention with your above statements comes from your statement, extra work - both for the user, who has to quote such names, and for the software,.
Most computer users, yes most, do not have to deal with filenames in a command line or type requested interface. 99% of computer users today work in graphical interfaces, and effectively manage their documents through this interface. It is only when you enter the realm of the developers, programmers, and techs that you will find users that work even work with filenames in a command line or type requested interface.
Now for the these 'special' users that do use a command line or type requested interface for accessing files, there is NOTHING preventing them from storing their data WITHOUT SPACES. There is NO rule that forces them to use spaces or upper or lower case text even.
To contrast this loss of productivity I would like for you to journey with me to a typical work or test environment. How much difference in wasted time do you think there is between the infrequent user that has to use a typed interface for filenames and either hit the TAB key or add quotes to the filename and a user that cannot find a document because of an obscure filename? Just imagine the differences in the computer searching for the document, and even the user searching through similar named files trying to locate something that would have been a lot easier for them and the computer to search for and find if the filename was in a more natural language and used spaces to delaminate words as people do in the real world.
If you have been in test or work environments and truly been overseeing the usability improvements of introducing natural language filenames, with spaces, to users, you would not have the opinion of how awful spaces are and how they waste time.
The second point of contention is with your assessment that dealing with spaces in filenames is something hard for software to handle. Maybe back in 70s this could be argued that it was hard for software to do. However considering this is many years later, 99.9% of all software APIs, OSes, and development environments inherently provide tools to easily manage spaces without even a second thought. If your software has problems with spaces in filenames, maybe it is time you thought about seeing if they have a new version of WordWriter or WordStar.
Imagine a natural language parser. You type, "computer pleas
Thisisbrilliantwhydon'twejustremovespacesfromevery thingwetypebecauseyouaretoolazytoquoteafilenameorp ressthetabkeyandletthecommandlineinterfacedoitfory ouautomatically.Whydon'twejustremovespacesfromever ythingwedo,maybethereasonwehaven'tisbecausenomatte rwhetheryouareusingcuteunderlinesorcapitalizingeac hwordinthesentence,itisstillhardertoreadandtakemor etimeforthenaturalprocessingofinformationinthebrai ntorecognizethingsquickly.Iforonejustthinkyouarela zyorreallysimplemindedtobelievethatusingnamingconv entionswithoutnaturallanguagesyntaxlikespacesisgoi ngtobeproductivetoanyone,exceptmaybefoolslikethath aven'tlearnedaneasierwaytonavigateorprocessdocumen tsorinformationthanfromacommandline.
This_is_brilliant_why_don't_we_just_remove_space s_ from_everything_we_type_because_you_are_too_lazy_t o_quote_a_filename_or_press_the_tab_key_and_let_th e_command_line_interface_do_it_for_you_automatical ly._Why_don't_we_just_remove_spaces_from_everythin g_we_do,_maybe_the_reason_we_haven't_is_because_no _matter_whether_you_are_using_cute_underlines_or_c apitalizing_each_word_in_the_sentence,_it_is_still _harder_to_read_and_take_more_time_for_the_natural _processing_of_information_in_the_brain_to_recogni ze_things_quickly._I_for_one_just_think_you_are_la zy_or_really_simple_minded_to_believe_that_using_n aming_conventions_without_natural_language_syntax_ like_spaces_is_going_to_be_productive_to_anyone,_e xcept_maybe_fools_like_that_haven't_learned_an_eas ier_way_to_navigate_or_process_documents_or_inform ation_than_from_a_command_line.
ThisIsBrilliantWhyDon'tWeJustRemoveSpacesFromEve ry thingWeTypeBecauseYouAreTooLazyToQuoteAFilenameOrP ressTheTabKeyAndLetTheCommandLineInterfaceDoItForY ouAutomatically.WhyDon'tWeJustRemoveSpacesFromEver ythingWeDo,MaybeTheReasonWeHaven'tIsBecauseNoMatte rWhetherYouAreUsingCuteUnderlinesOrCapitalizingEac hWordInTheSentence,ItIsStillHarderToReadAndTakeMor eTimeForTheNaturalProcessingOfInformationInTheBrai nToRecognizeThingsQuickly.IForOneJustThinkYouAreLa zyOrReallySimpleMindedToBelieveThatUsingNamingConv entionsWithoutNaturalLanguageSyntaxLikeSpacesIsGoi ngToBeProductiveToAnyone,ExceptMaybeFoolsLikeThatH aven'tLearnedAnEasierWayToNavigateOrProcessDocumen tsOrInformationThanFromACommandLine.
This is brilliant why don't we just remove spaces from everything we type because you are too lazy to quote a filename or press the tab key and let the command line interface do it for you automatically. Why don't we just remove spaces from everything we do, maybe the reason we haven't is because no matter whether you are using cute underlines or capitalizing each word in the sentence, it is still harder to read and take more time for the natural processing of information in the brain to recognize things quickly. I for one just think you are lazy or really simple minded to believe that using naming conventions without natural language syntax like spaces is going to be productive to anyone, except maybe fools like that haven't learned an easier way to navigate or process documents or information than from a command line.
So which one of these was the easiest for you or anyone to read? Exactly my point. Just like when a computer is storing the name of a video, a song, or anything that might have need for
How feasible is online gaming on one of these cards?
Depends on the network, card, and game...
I have a Verizon 3G card...
In San Diego or DC where they have the full 3G implementation, my download is faster than DSL driving down the road or at the beach.
I can also play real-time FPS when in my home city of San Diego, no problem.
Outside of San Diego or DC, I get the standard 144kps connection, and real time gaming is not fast enough for FPS type of games.
However, if you are playing something like Star Wars Galaxies or other online role playing game, even outside the 3G cities, it works fine, still better than dialup.
Like the above poster said, this stuff isn't new, not even in the US. I have had my verizon card for months and have been getting better than DSL speeds on average no matter where I am in the San Diego area. I have only tested it at the airport in DC, but it worked just as fast there as well.
As for regular coverage, I just did a road trip from San Diego to Reno, and after leaving LA the radio stations on the car started dropping off.
So I turned on the laptop, tuned into one of my favorite radio stations on the internet and listened all the way from LA to Reno with only a couple of drop offs, and it reconnected within secs.
It was ironic that out in the middle of nowhere in the valley, we could only get static on the car radio, but had full internet service and could listen to radio over the Verizon card.
was not trying to flame MS for their past actions - however Microsoft started out with a fairly clean codebase for both Win2k and WinXP. Given that, it seems bad that such vulnerabilities keep coming up.
Not sure where you get it was a 'clean' code base. Win2k and XP are based on 1992 NT technology. Although NT is a strong OS technology, it was not new in Win2k or XP, far from new.
In fact, this is one of the reason Microsoft waited so long to move their consumer level OSes to the NT base, they wanted more maturity in the NT core technologies.
As for the 'Buffer Checking' debate...
Everyone hear does not either program much or get the concepts of 'just buffer checking'. If Microsoft would have had reliable compiler technology back in 2001 that they have now with the creation of the new Visual Studio and 'managed code' compilers, XP would have been compiled with an extra layer of buffer checking.
Instead, this was left at the coding level, just as it has been in the *nix world for a LONG LONG time.
With the new compiler technologies Microsoft was able to add compiler level checking for many exploits and flaws, hence adding a new layer of protection around the existing XP and 2003 Server code base.
A standard feature of Motif widgets is tabbing between them
Yeah, and tabbing between widgets has been standard on Windows since version 1.x back in the 80s, your point?
This is NOT ABOUT tabbing between widgets, it is about being able to fully navigate hyperlinks in an HTML document without a mouse. I.E. using the browser contents as if they were widgets...
Everyone here complains about the software patents, but yet the company that gets sued 99% of the time over patents is Microsoft, and how many times have they sued (other than to protect themselves) over their patents?
When you are a big target like Microsoft, I would be putting a patent on everything my company came out with until the patent laws are fixed.
Just like FAT, do you honestly thing Microsoft would have patented it if they hadn't started getting sued over even the simpleest and stupid patents. They could have patented FAT years and years ago, but it wasn'y until this last year that they did.
As you said patents are an abomination.
1991
Really 1991? And what year did HTTP and HTML come to pass, let alone become a standard?
If you are going to make this stuff up, you need to at least look at the dates you are using and try to make them realistic.
Because something like, "My TRS-80 had the use of the TAB key browsing the web back in 1983 would sound just about as nuts."
!! (1993ish origins, I think)
Cool, so it possibly even pre dates the development of HTTP and the web itself. (Satire)
Do a version history on NetTamer, your timeframe is WAY off.
Actually, I think it has been a standard part of graphical web clients for a long time. Tab and shift tab to any particular form entry, button or link, press space bar or enter to follow it.
Actually IE 3 was the first browser that allowed keyboard Navigation, and was one of the 'new' features of IE3 that gave it a lead on all the existing browsers of the time.
Just because it is COMMON in all broswers today doesn't meant that microsoft isn't the first software company to implement the idea in a Browser.
Which I am sure will anger a lot people here, but they were the first browser to have keyboard navigation features.
Some of us that were here when IE3 was released, remember this, and how handy it was at the time.