DYI's can go to hell as far as I'm concerned because they literally ruined the PC industry by sucking all of the R&D money out of the business leaving us with an endless sea of clones.
You are a hardware head and I'm interested in software and don't give a fuck about hardware as long as it runs the software I want to use.
Well, if you don't care about hardware then I would think you would like the endless sea of clones. Sure, they may be boring, but they are cheap and fast.
You really work hard at missing the point, don't you sparky?
There's no new law required here. If you buy a license to use OS X, you're bound by the terms of that license if you use the product.
That's only if EULA's attached to software are a legal, binding document. Right now they are kind of a grey area - can you really hold someone to the terms in a EULA when all they did was remove some shrinkwrap? It's not like a regular contract where both people sign on it. Atleast in the US, they have yet to be tried in a court of law.
All that you would have to worry about would be to get a supported Intel CPU and a motherboard with a supported chipset, and possibly a supported video card. The rest of the stuff should pretty much Just Work because there are already drivers for it. Just as if I took my PCI network card, sound card, PCI 56k modem, and Firewire/USB 2.0 card and put it into a PPC PowerMac, they would just work too. The only problems I would forsee would be pretty minor ones, like maybe the PS/2 ports wouldn't work, and stuff like that.
The thing that makes Opera so much faster is the way the back button works. Opera stores pages you visited in memory already rendered, so whenever I go back, it's instant. All the other browsers re-render the page from cache (or worse, fetch stuff off of the server) which is much much slower. This makes a huge difference on both slow and fast computers. However, this has the disadvantage of eating up tons of ram, which is why Opera is considered a memory hog by some. (Firefox also likes to use up a lot of memory, though I don't know what for).
When it comes to rendering a page that hasn't been cached yet, I find most browsers to be about the same when on a fast computer. Opera is fast, Firefox is fast. Heck, even MSIE is fast.
If it's anything like my school was, a good portion of the hits to your school library's sites come from computers within the library. And the lab computers in the library at my school were pretty heavily locked down, and all you had was MSIE. Even the Macintoshes in the library just had IE on them (eventually they relented and gave access to Safari, as IE on the Mac is getting pretty dated).
And the Intel processors of 1983-86 vintage were too underpowered to handle the overhead of a GUI at an acceptable performance level. Try booting one up in Win 2.0 some time...
I have a 286 (12Mhz, 4MB of memory) that quite happily runs Windows 3.1 on top of Dos 6.xx (forgot what I installed on there). Granted, it's not the snappiest it could be, but it's very usable.
Well, part of the problem in the "low-end" Mac market is that Apple has some arbitrary (and stupid IMHO) restrictions on OSX. Like you need to have Firewire ports to install 10.4. Why? Just cause. And you need a DVD drive, or pay an extra $10 fee to get CDs.
Now, in the $100-$200 range, there are plenty of iMacs with G3's with processors in the 300-400Mhz range. Apparently some models in this range have Firewire, and some (most?) don't. Also some have DVD drives, but most don't. If I have a model number, I can just punch that into Google and find out if it has firewire (or even better if I could just visit apple.com and check a compatibility list). But instead most sellers say something like "Its a G3 400Mhz with 256MB of ram and a 8GB drive. Oh and it's blue." - which tells me very little.
I should note that it does appear that Apple does have some model numbers. The iMac M5521 is (as far as I can tell) a later G3 based system with firewire ports but a CD drive. But Apple seems to like to pretend these model numbers don't exist - doing a search for M5521 on apple.com yields nothing.
Ah, I love guys like you... "I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to let that stop me from vomiting up an opinion anyway."
And I love people like you, who think that I have to read all the Harry Potter books to have a valid opinion the Harry Potter movies - or that I have to watch all episodes of Star Trek before my opinion of Nemesis has any weight. Usually the term "fanboy" is reserved for people like this.
My opinion is the opinion of someone who hasn't seen the TV show. What's wrong with that? If the movie is only going to appeal to people who watched the TV series, it's going to flop as the TV series had low ratings and got canceled fairly quickly. In other words, this movie is going to have to be able to stand on its own. You can bet that whoever is making this movie cares about what people like me think. Not that they probably read slashdot though.
Well, Apple isn't that different. For example, take the 20GB iPod. What generation is it? Does it have the clickwheel? Is it an iPod photo? What revision? There are many different things that can be called a "20GB iPod".
Or how about the PowerMac G5 dual 2Ghz machine? What revision is it? Is it one of the machines from a couple years ago with all the goodies, or is it the newer low end 2Ghz model that's been stripped of some of the high end features?
Or the iMac. Is it one of the gumdrop CRT ones? Does it have a tray or slot loading drive? Or is it a DVD drive? Does it have firewire ports? What revision is? What color is it? How much video ram does it have? If you're trying to buy a used iMac, these can be very important questions - a DVD drive and firewire ports means you can probably get Tiger on it, otherwise you might have settle for an older version of Mac OS.
The model names may be cryptic, but to someone who knows them, they can be very descriptive. If I say I have a Sony SDM-S204 DVI-D monitor or a Sony STR-DE445 reciever, they'll know exactly what I'm talking about, as opposed to a "20 inch Sony flatscreen" or "some Sony stereo thingy".
Of course, Sony also comes up with names like "Vaio" and "Walkman" for everyone else to use. If I say I have a Sony Vaio, atleast you'll know that I have a laptop.
I'm with the original poster on this one. I haven't seen the TV show, and the movie just looks like your standard cheesy B-grade sci-fi fair. It'll probably be a fun, entertaining show much like The Chronicles of Riddick - but if you're looking for an actual good movie look elsewhere.
Probably because if they tried to use all that space, the interface would look busy and uninviting, and would confuse people. That's why Apple's interfaces tend to be pretty minimalist, and it works pretty well (and Microsoft tries the same thing, but really doesn't seem to get it). Though Apple is often a bit too minimalist for my tastes, and Apple does do some (IMHO) boneheaded things for the sake of being minimal. For example, no front USB/Firewire/audio out ports on any of their computers (that I know of). Or no Windowshade mode for iTunes. Or no seperate power switches for their monitors. Not to mention the whole one button mouse thing.
Most businesses are still stuck on W2k. They only get XP when they get a new machine, and for many companies (especially the small ones), this only happens when the old one dies or can't run the software anymore.
Not only that, in many companies the first thing they do is wipe that OEM copy of XP off the drive and install Win2k.
I currently run AMD in everything I own, but they went through a real lull in the K6-2 generation. It's not been all roses.
Not to mention the K5's weren't really that great, and few motherboards really supported them well. The K6-2 wasn't really a bad chip, it's just that Intel had the famous Celeron 300A that easily overclocked to 450Mhz and totally dominated the bang for the buck catagory for quite a while.
The QC issues they used to (or maybe still do? I wouldn't know, I can't get myself to buy one of their chips) have coupled with their lack of response to it has branded them among people in the know. I think this more than anything is preventing their market penetration.
What quality control issues? I have never had any problems with a single AMD chip. Most of the issues I have had with AMD based systems have to do with flakey motherboards with crappy chipsets. Even AMD's own chipsets were lousy. Quite simply, none of the Athlon systems I have dealt with have been as stable or solid as Intel P3/P4 systems with Intel chipsets. Though the systems I have installed a nForce2 based replacement motherboards in so far have worked great. And I also have some K6-2/K6-3 systems that simply refuse to die (with VIA chipsets, no less).
I haven't dealt with an AMD64 system yet, but they look to be a lot better. I sure hope so, because I do like AMD's chips.
The article said there has been 75 Million downloads and... that's pretty much it. They said nothing about installed base or numbers of users or anything. So in other words, you're an idiot.
The N64 was the beginning of Nintendo's shunning by independent developers. Cartridges meant fast load time, but virtually no FMV
I don't really see this as a bad thing though. A few cutscenes are essential to games like Final Fantasy, but it seems like developers on the XBox and PS2 have WAY over done it.
Because it looks stylish and doesn't have kiddie games. That makes it a success in Slashbot's eyes. (Shh, don't bring up worldwide sales or profit margins.)
I thought that since it is made by Microsoft, that automatically makes it a failure? I mean, look at Windows - it runs on something like 90% of desktops out there, but its still considered a failure by many people here.
Slashdot Mirror
DYI's can go to hell as far as I'm concerned because they literally ruined the PC industry by sucking all of the R&D money out of the business leaving us with an endless sea of clones.
You are a hardware head and I'm interested in software and don't give a fuck about hardware as long as it runs the software I want to use.
Well, if you don't care about hardware then I would think you would like the endless sea of clones. Sure, they may be boring, but they are cheap and fast.
You really work hard at missing the point, don't you sparky?
There's no new law required here. If you buy a license to use OS X, you're bound by the terms of that license if you use the product.
That's only if EULA's attached to software are a legal, binding document. Right now they are kind of a grey area - can you really hold someone to the terms in a EULA when all they did was remove some shrinkwrap? It's not like a regular contract where both people sign on it. Atleast in the US, they have yet to be tried in a court of law.
All that you would have to worry about would be to get a supported Intel CPU and a motherboard with a supported chipset, and possibly a supported video card. The rest of the stuff should pretty much Just Work because there are already drivers for it. Just as if I took my PCI network card, sound card, PCI 56k modem, and Firewire/USB 2.0 card and put it into a PPC PowerMac, they would just work too. The only problems I would forsee would be pretty minor ones, like maybe the PS/2 ports wouldn't work, and stuff like that.
He hasn't updated that site in ages.
I just glanced at the site, and he lists Opera 8.00, which has only been out a few months. So it isn't that old.
The thing that makes Opera so much faster is the way the back button works. Opera stores pages you visited in memory already rendered, so whenever I go back, it's instant. All the other browsers re-render the page from cache (or worse, fetch stuff off of the server) which is much much slower. This makes a huge difference on both slow and fast computers. However, this has the disadvantage of eating up tons of ram, which is why Opera is considered a memory hog by some. (Firefox also likes to use up a lot of memory, though I don't know what for).
When it comes to rendering a page that hasn't been cached yet, I find most browsers to be about the same when on a fast computer. Opera is fast, Firefox is fast. Heck, even MSIE is fast.
Looks very familiar. I came across IQ stats some days ago and they looked very similar...
Like the original poster, it appears that you've lost about 6% somewhere.
Opera 8.02, set to identify as Opera. That site seems to work fine.
If it's anything like my school was, a good portion of the hits to your school library's sites come from computers within the library. And the lab computers in the library at my school were pretty heavily locked down, and all you had was MSIE. Even the Macintoshes in the library just had IE on them (eventually they relented and gave access to Safari, as IE on the Mac is getting pretty dated).
And the Intel processors of 1983-86 vintage were too underpowered to handle the overhead of a GUI at an acceptable performance level. Try booting one up in Win 2.0 some time...
I have a 286 (12Mhz, 4MB of memory) that quite happily runs Windows 3.1 on top of Dos 6.xx (forgot what I installed on there). Granted, it's not the snappiest it could be, but it's very usable.
Well, part of the problem in the "low-end" Mac market is that Apple has some arbitrary (and stupid IMHO) restrictions on OSX. Like you need to have Firewire ports to install 10.4. Why? Just cause. And you need a DVD drive, or pay an extra $10 fee to get CDs.
Now, in the $100-$200 range, there are plenty of iMacs with G3's with processors in the 300-400Mhz range. Apparently some models in this range have Firewire, and some (most?) don't. Also some have DVD drives, but most don't. If I have a model number, I can just punch that into Google and find out if it has firewire (or even better if I could just visit apple.com and check a compatibility list). But instead most sellers say something like "Its a G3 400Mhz with 256MB of ram and a 8GB drive. Oh and it's blue." - which tells me very little.
I should note that it does appear that Apple does have some model numbers. The iMac M5521 is (as far as I can tell) a later G3 based system with firewire ports but a CD drive. But Apple seems to like to pretend these model numbers don't exist - doing a search for M5521 on apple.com yields nothing.
Ah, I love guys like you... "I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm not going to let that stop me from vomiting up an opinion anyway."
And I love people like you, who think that I have to read all the Harry Potter books to have a valid opinion the Harry Potter movies - or that I have to watch all episodes of Star Trek before my opinion of Nemesis has any weight. Usually the term "fanboy" is reserved for people like this.
My opinion is the opinion of someone who hasn't seen the TV show. What's wrong with that? If the movie is only going to appeal to people who watched the TV series, it's going to flop as the TV series had low ratings and got canceled fairly quickly. In other words, this movie is going to have to be able to stand on its own. You can bet that whoever is making this movie cares about what people like me think. Not that they probably read slashdot though.
Well, Apple isn't that different. For example, take the 20GB iPod. What generation is it? Does it have the clickwheel? Is it an iPod photo? What revision? There are many different things that can be called a "20GB iPod".
Or how about the PowerMac G5 dual 2Ghz machine? What revision is it? Is it one of the machines from a couple years ago with all the goodies, or is it the newer low end 2Ghz model that's been stripped of some of the high end features?
Or the iMac. Is it one of the gumdrop CRT ones? Does it have a tray or slot loading drive? Or is it a DVD drive? Does it have firewire ports? What revision is? What color is it? How much video ram does it have? If you're trying to buy a used iMac, these can be very important questions - a DVD drive and firewire ports means you can probably get Tiger on it, otherwise you might have settle for an older version of Mac OS.
The model names may be cryptic, but to someone who knows them, they can be very descriptive. If I say I have a Sony SDM-S204 DVI-D monitor or a Sony STR-DE445 reciever, they'll know exactly what I'm talking about, as opposed to a "20 inch Sony flatscreen" or "some Sony stereo thingy".
Of course, Sony also comes up with names like "Vaio" and "Walkman" for everyone else to use. If I say I have a Sony Vaio, atleast you'll know that I have a laptop.
I'm with the original poster on this one. I haven't seen the TV show, and the movie just looks like your standard cheesy B-grade sci-fi fair. It'll probably be a fun, entertaining show much like The Chronicles of Riddick - but if you're looking for an actual good movie look elsewhere.
Unskilled labor?
If it's so easy to do, why can't the average slashdotter get laid?
Slashdotters, with their holier than thou attitude, think they are above unskilled labor. That's why.
Can the wayback archive be used as a tool for showing admins on /. that this article is basically a dupe?
Well Mr. "cached", why don't you tell us?
Your dad resembles a dialogue box?
Probably the only way his Dad is able to talk to him is by using 'net send' on the computer upstairs.
Probably because if they tried to use all that space, the interface would look busy and uninviting, and would confuse people. That's why Apple's interfaces tend to be pretty minimalist, and it works pretty well (and Microsoft tries the same thing, but really doesn't seem to get it). Though Apple is often a bit too minimalist for my tastes, and Apple does do some (IMHO) boneheaded things for the sake of being minimal. For example, no front USB/Firewire/audio out ports on any of their computers (that I know of). Or no Windowshade mode for iTunes. Or no seperate power switches for their monitors. Not to mention the whole one button mouse thing.
Most businesses are still stuck on W2k. They only get XP when they get a new machine, and for many companies (especially the small ones), this only happens when the old one dies or can't run the software anymore.
Not only that, in many companies the first thing they do is wipe that OEM copy of XP off the drive and install Win2k.
I currently run AMD in everything I own, but they went through a real lull in the K6-2 generation. It's not been all roses.
Not to mention the K5's weren't really that great, and few motherboards really supported them well. The K6-2 wasn't really a bad chip, it's just that Intel had the famous Celeron 300A that easily overclocked to 450Mhz and totally dominated the bang for the buck catagory for quite a while.
The QC issues they used to (or maybe still do? I wouldn't know, I can't get myself to buy one of their chips) have coupled with their lack of response to it has branded them among people in the know. I think this more than anything is preventing their market penetration.
What quality control issues? I have never had any problems with a single AMD chip. Most of the issues I have had with AMD based systems have to do with flakey motherboards with crappy chipsets. Even AMD's own chipsets were lousy. Quite simply, none of the Athlon systems I have dealt with have been as stable or solid as Intel P3/P4 systems with Intel chipsets. Though the systems I have installed a nForce2 based replacement motherboards in so far have worked great. And I also have some K6-2/K6-3 systems that simply refuse to die (with VIA chipsets, no less).
I haven't dealt with an AMD64 system yet, but they look to be a lot better. I sure hope so, because I do like AMD's chips.
The article said there has been 75 Million downloads and... that's pretty much it. They said nothing about installed base or numbers of users or anything. So in other words, you're an idiot.
The N64 was the beginning of Nintendo's shunning by independent developers. Cartridges meant fast load time, but virtually no FMV
I don't really see this as a bad thing though. A few cutscenes are essential to games like Final Fantasy, but it seems like developers on the XBox and PS2 have WAY over done it.
Judging by previous console releases, the XBox360 probably has "near photorealistic graphics" in the cutscenes only. But we'll see.
Because it looks stylish and doesn't have kiddie games. That makes it a success in Slashbot's eyes. (Shh, don't bring up worldwide sales or profit margins.)
I thought that since it is made by Microsoft, that automatically makes it a failure? I mean, look at Windows - it runs on something like 90% of desktops out there, but its still considered a failure by many people here.
I think you missed the point, the XBox never made profits....
Just to clarify, do you mean X-Box as in the hardware, or X-Box as in the entire console division at Microsoft?