Now that the Mini Mac is actually cheaper (unless you pirate Windows) than a baseline PC
You can get complete PC's for less than $500. Complete means it has a monitor (a LCD is not out of the question), a keyboard, and a mouse. Maybe even a printer too. A Mac Mini may have several advantages over a low end PC, but cost is not one of them.
All other things being equal, we would of had a Democratic president with a Republican House and Senate. Which would likely mean nothing would get done, and Kerry would of likely ended up being a lame duck president that accomplished little. Which would of been a hell of a lot better than re-electing Bush.
With the terrible reliability of DVD drives, most systems I have that started out being able to read DVD's can now only read CD's. Since I don't have any real reason to need DVD capabilities, I haven't replaced them yet.
I fondly remember a place known as Circus Circus. Same basic formula: Pizza, arcade games, bumper cars, and cheesy music. Might of been a local Minnesota thing though. They went out of business, now a Chucky Cheese resides in their old building.
The thing is, nothing is stopping me from running the latest browsers on a legacy Linux machine running an older kernel. As a matter of fact, the 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 kernels are still being maintained (I believe).
And the big deal is - Linux is free. It costs nothing but a little time to move to a newer Linux distro. It costs about $200 to move to XP Pro with the upgrade version. We also like to complain about the $129 cost to upgrade OS X. So we aren't that inconsistant.
Lastly, a lot of people don't like the changes in XP. And the stuff that Microsoft tries to shove down our throats. That's why a lot of people are sticking with Windows 2000. In Linux, this isn't an issue. If I don't like the way one distro is headed (say, Fedora), I can move to another distro (say, Slackware).
Though, you are right about one thing. Why should we care about IE when we are all using Firefox/Opera/Mozilla on our Windows machines already?
The thing is, what are the differences between Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server? 2003 Server does get things like the Themes service, IE6SP2, and WMP10 - but really, is any of that stuff important for a server?
The thing is, Microsoft got things mostly right with 2000. I can install 2000, and pretty much start using it as-is (disabling the Messenger service is about all that needs to be done). When I install XP, I have to run around and change all kinds of settings, and disable all kinds of crap before using the system. Then if you install SP2 you have to do another round of changing settings and disabling crap. I really wish Microsoft would of included an option in the install where you could say "Make this look like Windows 2000 as much as possible".
Disclaimer: My main Windows computer runs XP, mostly for the better dual head support. The grouping of common tasks on the taskbar is also a nice touch. Otherwise, there isn't much of advantage to XP.
I can't stand characters like this. Unfortunately, they are still in all-to-often use today. For example, last week I saw National Treasure. The stupid assistant is this same plot device.
In episodes IV and V, R2D2 and C3PO were used as the comic relief. I thought it was very well done - it was believable in the context of the Star Wars universe, and humorous while not being completely over the top. Though I agree, most of the time it's just annoying, like the Ewoks in Episode VI and Jar Jar Binks in Episode I.
Methinks perhaps you spotted differences that weren't there?
Besides the fact that Anthony Daniels is almost 30 years older now than he was when Episode IV was made, there are almost certainly differences in the way the sound was processed, mixed, and dubbed in (I'm sure now it's all digital, for example).
Still, I do notice a slight difference. I'm surprised they weren't able to match it better. But still, it's a pretty small issue all things considered.
I remember when I made the switch from Netscape 4 to IE 5. I resisted IE for many years, but at some point it just became evident that Internet Explorer was a superior product in almost every way.
I remember when I got tired of Netscape 4. I didn't want to use IE, so I looked around and discovered a little browser called Opera 4 (shortly after I switched Opera 5 was released). I have never looked back since. I am probably one of the few people that has never used IE as my primary browser at any point.
Windows XP can't be considered consumer-ready until it has driver support for common LCD monitors during its installation and bootup procedure, especially if those monitors are easily and routinely recognized by popular Linux distributions.
I've never had a monitor problem with windows XP.
I've seen the graphical part of the Windows XP installation attempt to drive a DVI connected LCD flat panel at refresh rates higher than 60Hz. Needless to say, the flat panel monitor did not like this (poor picture quality, but still could make things out, so I was able to get past this stage). However, once past the install stage, Windows XP set itself up with the proper refresh rate, and all was well.
On the other hand, many Linux distros on the same computer would try to run the flat panel at high refresh rates too. Sometimes, this was easy to fix (in Knoppix, just use the proper cheat code when booting). Other times, I had to boot into run level 3 and hand edit config files (Mandrake).
I've seen a 2.5GHz Celeron system with 700+ megabytes of RAM get dragged to equal productivity of worprocessing as my lively 386 50MHz computer and MS-DOS/Microsoft Works.
Really? Because I seem to remember my high end 386 running the current software for it's day to be considerably faster than any current Windows/Linux computer running today's software. I'm talking being completly booted up in less than 30 seconds from hitting the power switch (none of this HDD thrashing for several minutes), and loading Word Perfect almost instantly after typing in the command at the C:\> prompt. Heck, loading Windows 3.0 was only another 20-30 seconds after loading DOS. That was fast.
If you think that is amazing, try a bootable Linux CD like Knoppix. Unless your machine either uses strange hardware or is bleeding edge, Knoppix will detect your hardware and boot up into a full Linux system with sound, video, and network support within a minute or two. All from a bootable CD that doesn't need to touch your HDD at all.
On another note, the thing that pisses me off with Windows XP's hardware detection more than anything else is the bloody "Press F6" floppy you need if you are installing Windows onto anything but the most plain vanilla ATA controller you can find. I can understand the need for drivers, but why does Windows setup INSIST on a floppy disk?
If I was you, I would be dreading IE7. I'm sure it will be a little bit better at CSS and DOM, but it will have it's quirks and bugs that you'll need to program around - which will be nothing like the current quirks and bugs found in current versions of IE. And to add to the headache, I'm guessing you'll have to still support the various versions of IE6 for quite a long time into the future.
I agree, tabbed browsing isn't that great. It's for people who run their browsers maximized because they don't understand windowing interfaces or lack the resolution. Being able to actually see the page I want to switch to as opposed to memorizing its title (which may be obscure) is much better.
You must be thinking of the way Firefox and Safari do tabs. I suggest you try Opera's way of doing tabs before knocking the concept entirely. Opera actually treats each tab as its own window inside of the main program's window. The windows can be resized, tiled, and moved around just like you might expect. You can even drag the tabs out of the main program, creating an entirely seperate window (great for dual head). Basically you have all the advantages of tabs and seperate windows at the same time.
I don't use "alternative" browsers because I don't want to deal with sites that don't work properly with them.
The way I deal with the very few that I encounter that don't work in alternative browsers is... by firing up IE. That is, if I'm on Windows at the time. Really, I would rather have to deal with the occasional site that doesn't work in Opera/Firefox that way, rather than deal with missing all the stuff the other browsers offer. But each to their own.
I got 2 17" monitors from a company that didn't want them anymore. They are generic, no name monitors but they work nice. The company was glad that I saved them the cost of getting them recycled. I was happy to get them. Just recently I found a 17" NEC in a dumpster. Looks like hell, nice picture.
Anyhow, you might want to check the cable on your monitor. A flaky connection, usually due to the VGA cable plug getting mashed between the back of a the PC and the wall is usually what's at fault for problems like you have with your monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that the Mini Mac is actually cheaper (unless you pirate Windows) than a baseline PC
You can get complete PC's for less than $500. Complete means it has a monitor (a LCD is not out of the question), a keyboard, and a mouse. Maybe even a printer too. A Mac Mini may have several advantages over a low end PC, but cost is not one of them.
There are a couple of Athlon XP CPUs that get that high. Most use around 70-75W. The mobile versions use around 40W.
All other things being equal, we would of had a Democratic president with a Republican House and Senate. Which would likely mean nothing would get done, and Kerry would of likely ended up being a lame duck president that accomplished little. Which would of been a hell of a lot better than re-electing Bush.
With the terrible reliability of DVD drives, most systems I have that started out being able to read DVD's can now only read CD's. Since I don't have any real reason to need DVD capabilities, I haven't replaced them yet.
I have started using "IBM compatible" to describe IA32 compatible computers again.
Being that IBM recently sold off its PC division, maybe you should think of a new term?
I fondly remember a place known as Circus Circus. Same basic formula: Pizza, arcade games, bumper cars, and cheesy music. Might of been a local Minnesota thing though. They went out of business, now a Chucky Cheese resides in their old building.
Quite frankly, I love your films, but I don't know if I can handle another heaping, steaming pile of "fan" reaction yet again.
Quite frankly, the Indiana Jones films are great, but do we really need another one? How about something original for a change?
Fair? By definition, the first post can't be redundent!
The thing is, nothing is stopping me from running the latest browsers on a legacy Linux machine running an older kernel. As a matter of fact, the 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 kernels are still being maintained (I believe).
And the big deal is - Linux is free. It costs nothing but a little time to move to a newer Linux distro. It costs about $200 to move to XP Pro with the upgrade version. We also like to complain about the $129 cost to upgrade OS X. So we aren't that inconsistant.
Lastly, a lot of people don't like the changes in XP. And the stuff that Microsoft tries to shove down our throats. That's why a lot of people are sticking with Windows 2000. In Linux, this isn't an issue. If I don't like the way one distro is headed (say, Fedora), I can move to another distro (say, Slackware).
Though, you are right about one thing. Why should we care about IE when we are all using Firefox/Opera/Mozilla on our Windows machines already?
The thing is, what are the differences between Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server? 2003 Server does get things like the Themes service, IE6SP2, and WMP10 - but really, is any of that stuff important for a server?
The thing is, Microsoft got things mostly right with 2000. I can install 2000, and pretty much start using it as-is (disabling the Messenger service is about all that needs to be done). When I install XP, I have to run around and change all kinds of settings, and disable all kinds of crap before using the system. Then if you install SP2 you have to do another round of changing settings and disabling crap. I really wish Microsoft would of included an option in the install where you could say "Make this look like Windows 2000 as much as possible".
Disclaimer: My main Windows computer runs XP, mostly for the better dual head support. The grouping of common tasks on the taskbar is also a nice touch. Otherwise, there isn't much of advantage to XP.
That's brillant!
1. Buy laptops without harddrives.
2. With the money you save, you can afford Mac servers!
3. ????
4. Profit!
WHOOOOOSH
Did you hear that? That was the sound of the joke going completely over your head.
I can't stand characters like this. Unfortunately, they are still in all-to-often use today. For example, last week I saw National Treasure. The stupid assistant is this same plot device.
In episodes IV and V, R2D2 and C3PO were used as the comic relief. I thought it was very well done - it was believable in the context of the Star Wars universe, and humorous while not being completely over the top. Though I agree, most of the time it's just annoying, like the Ewoks in Episode VI and Jar Jar Binks in Episode I.
Methinks perhaps you spotted differences that weren't there?
Besides the fact that Anthony Daniels is almost 30 years older now than he was when Episode IV was made, there are almost certainly differences in the way the sound was processed, mixed, and dubbed in (I'm sure now it's all digital, for example).
Still, I do notice a slight difference. I'm surprised they weren't able to match it better. But still, it's a pretty small issue all things considered.
I remember when I made the switch from Netscape 4 to IE 5. I resisted IE for many years, but at some point it just became evident that Internet Explorer was a superior product in almost every way.
I remember when I got tired of Netscape 4. I didn't want to use IE, so I looked around and discovered a little browser called Opera 4 (shortly after I switched Opera 5 was released). I have never looked back since. I am probably one of the few people that has never used IE as my primary browser at any point.
Not so fast! It wouldn't surprise me at all if the reason Intel is making these DRM'd chips is for Apple.
Yes, but how long did that same Windows XP machine take to boot once you had all the programs and utilities you needed installed on it?
Windows XP can't be considered consumer-ready until it has driver support for common LCD monitors during its installation and bootup procedure, especially if those monitors are easily and routinely recognized by popular Linux distributions.
I've never had a monitor problem with windows XP.
I've seen the graphical part of the Windows XP installation attempt to drive a DVI connected LCD flat panel at refresh rates higher than 60Hz. Needless to say, the flat panel monitor did not like this (poor picture quality, but still could make things out, so I was able to get past this stage). However, once past the install stage, Windows XP set itself up with the proper refresh rate, and all was well.
On the other hand, many Linux distros on the same computer would try to run the flat panel at high refresh rates too. Sometimes, this was easy to fix (in Knoppix, just use the proper cheat code when booting). Other times, I had to boot into run level 3 and hand edit config files (Mandrake).
I've seen a 2.5GHz Celeron system with 700+ megabytes of RAM get dragged to equal productivity of worprocessing as my lively 386 50MHz computer and MS-DOS/Microsoft Works.
Really? Because I seem to remember my high end 386 running the current software for it's day to be considerably faster than any current Windows/Linux computer running today's software. I'm talking being completly booted up in less than 30 seconds from hitting the power switch (none of this HDD thrashing for several minutes), and loading Word Perfect almost instantly after typing in the command at the C:\> prompt. Heck, loading Windows 3.0 was only another 20-30 seconds after loading DOS. That was fast.
If you think that is amazing, try a bootable Linux CD like Knoppix. Unless your machine either uses strange hardware or is bleeding edge, Knoppix will detect your hardware and boot up into a full Linux system with sound, video, and network support within a minute or two. All from a bootable CD that doesn't need to touch your HDD at all.
On another note, the thing that pisses me off with Windows XP's hardware detection more than anything else is the bloody "Press F6" floppy you need if you are installing Windows onto anything but the most plain vanilla ATA controller you can find. I can understand the need for drivers, but why does Windows setup INSIST on a floppy disk?
If I was you, I would be dreading IE7. I'm sure it will be a little bit better at CSS and DOM, but it will have it's quirks and bugs that you'll need to program around - which will be nothing like the current quirks and bugs found in current versions of IE. And to add to the headache, I'm guessing you'll have to still support the various versions of IE6 for quite a long time into the future.
I agree, tabbed browsing isn't that great. It's for people who run their browsers maximized because they don't understand windowing interfaces or lack the resolution. Being able to actually see the page I want to switch to as opposed to memorizing its title (which may be obscure) is much better.
You must be thinking of the way Firefox and Safari do tabs. I suggest you try Opera's way of doing tabs before knocking the concept entirely. Opera actually treats each tab as its own window inside of the main program's window. The windows can be resized, tiled, and moved around just like you might expect. You can even drag the tabs out of the main program, creating an entirely seperate window (great for dual head). Basically you have all the advantages of tabs and seperate windows at the same time.
I don't use "alternative" browsers because I don't want to deal with sites that don't work properly with them.
... by firing up IE. That is, if I'm on Windows at the time. Really, I would rather have to deal with the occasional site that doesn't work in Opera/Firefox that way, rather than deal with missing all the stuff the other browsers offer. But each to their own.
The way I deal with the very few that I encounter that don't work in alternative browsers is
I got 2 17" monitors from a company that didn't want them anymore. They are generic, no name monitors but they work nice. The company was glad that I saved them the cost of getting them recycled. I was happy to get them. Just recently I found a 17" NEC in a dumpster. Looks like hell, nice picture.
Anyhow, you might want to check the cable on your monitor. A flaky connection, usually due to the VGA cable plug getting mashed between the back of a the PC and the wall is usually what's at fault for problems like you have with your monitor.