One of the great benefits of an OLED display over the traditional LCD displays found in computer displays is that OLED displays don't require a backlight to function. This means that they draw far less power and they can be used with small portable devices which have mostly been using monochrome low-resolution displays to conserve power. This will also mean that they will be able to last for long periods of time with the same amount of battery charge."
One of the disadvantages of OLED is that they draw considerably more power than a LCD with the backlight off (which draws almost no power). So, in a mostly well lit environment, the LCD is going to be at an advantage because you can turn the backlight off. However, OLEDs do have the advantage of looking much cooler.
I do think the shuffle is a paradigm shift -- people think they need to a screen (I thought the same thing, especially coming from a 20GB iPod), but I'm telling you, it's overrated.
What, because Apple told you it was overrated? What if the Shuffle never existed, and it is Sony just announcing a screenless flash MP3 player? I would be pretty confident that just about everyone here would be laughing at how clueless Sony is for such a silly idea!
Longhorn won't come out until 2010 or so, and Microsoft will be able to charge for "Windows 98^K^KXP Special Edition". Not a bad idea.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised that Microsoft gave away XP SP2. They could of sold it as an upgrade (and taken a lot of flak for it, but still they would of gotten away with it). The difference between XP/XP SP1 and XP SP2 are bigger than 98 and 98SE if you ask me.
There were a lot of features found in Windows 98 that did not make it back to Windows 95. Things lie Dual head support, and better sound engine, and USB support that actually worked.
Don't hold your breath. Several years ago, when the first chips with a 133Mhz bus were coming out, I saw that it was pretty obvious there wasd going to be a 666Mhz PIII (133Mhz x 5). I was extremely disappointed when Intel decided to call it a 667Mhz chip. Same thing with the 667Mhz Celeron that came out shortly thereafter.
I have a 2Ghz system, with fairly decent parts, and it crushes much "faster" systems with slow, shitty parts (Dell, I'm looking at YOU). Anyway, all other things equal, I would expect a 3.6Ghz system to be faster.
Considering that Intel has been at 3.6GHz for quite a while now, it is no surprise they are focusing on processor power instead of just raw GHz.
Actually, Intel released a 3.8Ghz part not too long ago when no one was looking. Considering the current state of the P4, I can hardly blame Intel for not making a big deal of it.
Perhaps some of the flaws have to do with Windows NT/XP having to maintain some kind of compatibility with programs written for Win9x, Windows 3.1, and even Dos?
In some places, like Buffalo MN, the WiFi uses some kind of propriety hardware, and so you won't get a signal with the card you bought at NewEgg. So you're stuck buying whatever they say you have to buy to if you want to use it.
However, Buffalo MN is actually being serviced by a wireless ISP that charges per month to access the network, so it is a somewhat different situation. That and they have had the set up for some time now - when it was installed there probably wasn't as many options.
Make 5 and make them right: 1) Super low power notebook; 2) performance notebook; 3) main-stream desktop; 4) enthusiast-gamer desktop; 5) Hardcore teraflops.
Isn't that what they already got? 1. Pentium M 2. Pentium 4M 3. Pentium 4 4. Pentium 4EE 5. Itanium??
Why do you have to decide to quit television? I don't watch TV, but I didn't make a decision to stop watching it. One day, it just dawned on me that I hadn't turned the thing on in months, and I wasn't missing it in the least. I just feel no need for TV.
Did Apple innovate the harddisk based MP3 player? No.
Yes, they did. They had a large capacity in a tiny size with faster transfer rates. That is the definition of innovation.
Go look up the Rio's and others that existed before the iPod. Apple made them smaller and faster, thus better. That's evolution, not innovation, not invention.
As if the all-in-one iMac form factor computer was something that Apple invented. I distinctly remember Compaq Prolinea (sp?) 486 all-in-one computers, which crammed a CD-Rom, Floppy(!), and all the other needed parts into an oversized 14"-15" monitor. Picture here.
Likewise, a computer the size of a Mac Mini is hardly original - people have imagined stuff like that for years. Apple is just the first company to pull it off on such a large scale.
Please spec out an AMD64 which does all that while running under 22db of noise off an 85W power supply. Make sure to include firewire, USB2, and a DVD/CDRW. It doesn't need to look good, but cram it into a mini-ITX case.
Get back to us when you can do that for under $500.
Get back to us when you can spec out an Apple 64bit system, any 64bit system, for $500.
find this interesting, every machine Apple sells except at the definite low end is dual CPU SMP now,
Huh? None of the iMacs are dual CPU. The Mac Mini certainly is not dual CPU. There are no dual CPU notebooks. You have to move to the PowerMac G5 to find a dual CPU system, where the cheapest dual CPU box costs $1,999. It sure looks like Apple to me that only Apple's high end* machines have dual CPU. Though, I guess you could say that none of Apple's high end machines (Powerbooks excepted) are single CPU.
Really though, with the popularity of hyperthreading, PCs are a little closer to dual CPU in the lower end machines where you can get a hyperthreading P4 for not that much money, and have a psuedo-dual setup.
*I guess you could say the stock dual 1.8Ghz PowerMac G5 is not high end, as it ships with an absolutely pathetic amount of ram for a $2000 machine. But that's another discussion.
I have a crappy Toshiba laptop that locks hard when Knoppix probes it for SCSI devices. Mandrake installs without a hitch, and Mepis boots up just fine, though it doesn't know what to do with the integrated graphics so I get lovely 640x480 resolution off the Live CD.
So just because a laptop can boot easily Knoppix doesn't mean it will easily boot your other favorite distro, and vice-versa.
I've used PCs like that. 256MB is a bit on the low side, and there will be some disk grinding. But it's perfectly usuable. The biggest issue with old hardware like that is it takes a while to boot up. Once booted, a machine like that is great for web browsing, Office, and old games.
Another great thing about old systems like that is they are less than $100, often free. Not like used Macs that fetch insane prices (imho) for hopelessly obsolete hardware.
I use a G4 400Mhz with 10.3.something and 256MB of memory, and it's perfectly usuable too. To compare with a PC, it's more like Windows 2000 - it's happier with 512MB, but it'll run fine with 256MB. Not like XP, which does a lot of disk grinding with 256MB.
I do have most of the eye candy off though in OSX, if it makes a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this porn site worth mentioning, or is it just another run of the mill one?
How about I send you the preview page, and you can figure out the rest?
One of the great benefits of an OLED display over the traditional LCD displays found in computer displays is that OLED displays don't require a backlight to function. This means that they draw far less power and they can be used with small portable devices which have mostly been using monochrome low-resolution displays to conserve power. This will also mean that they will be able to last for long periods of time with the same amount of battery charge."
One of the disadvantages of OLED is that they draw considerably more power than a LCD with the backlight off (which draws almost no power). So, in a mostly well lit environment, the LCD is going to be at an advantage because you can turn the backlight off. However, OLEDs do have the advantage of looking much cooler.
I do think the shuffle is a paradigm shift -- people think they need to a screen (I thought the same thing, especially coming from a 20GB iPod), but I'm telling you, it's overrated.
What, because Apple told you it was overrated? What if the Shuffle never existed, and it is Sony just announcing a screenless flash MP3 player? I would be pretty confident that just about everyone here would be laughing at how clueless Sony is for such a silly idea!
Longhorn won't come out until 2010 or so, and Microsoft will be able to charge for "Windows 98^K^KXP Special Edition".
Not a bad idea.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised that Microsoft gave away XP SP2. They could of sold it as an upgrade (and taken a lot of flak for it, but still they would of gotten away with it). The difference between XP/XP SP1 and XP SP2 are bigger than 98 and 98SE if you ask me.
There were a lot of features found in Windows 98 that did not make it back to Windows 95. Things lie Dual head support, and better sound engine, and USB support that actually worked.
Except that every other chip has been rounded down.
486-66
P5-166
P2-266
Celeron 266
Celeron 766
P3-866
etc.
Don't hold your breath. Several years ago, when the first chips with a 133Mhz bus were coming out, I saw that it was pretty obvious there wasd going to be a 666Mhz PIII (133Mhz x 5). I was extremely disappointed when Intel decided to call it a 667Mhz chip. Same thing with the 667Mhz Celeron that came out shortly thereafter.
-1 troll?
I have a 2Ghz system, with fairly decent parts, and it crushes much "faster" systems with slow, shitty parts (Dell, I'm looking at YOU). Anyway, all other things equal, I would expect a 3.6Ghz system to be faster.
Considering that Intel has been at 3.6GHz for quite a while now, it is no surprise they are focusing on processor power instead of just raw GHz.
Actually, Intel released a 3.8Ghz part not too long ago when no one was looking. Considering the current state of the P4, I can hardly blame Intel for not making a big deal of it.
Perhaps some of the flaws have to do with Windows NT/XP having to maintain some kind of compatibility with programs written for Win9x, Windows 3.1, and even Dos?
In some places, like Buffalo MN, the WiFi uses some kind of propriety hardware, and so you won't get a signal with the card you bought at NewEgg. So you're stuck buying whatever they say you have to buy to if you want to use it.
However, Buffalo MN is actually being serviced by a wireless ISP that charges per month to access the network, so it is a somewhat different situation. That and they have had the set up for some time now - when it was installed there probably wasn't as many options.
Make 5 and make them right: 1) Super low power notebook; 2) performance notebook; 3) main-stream desktop; 4) enthusiast-gamer desktop; 5) Hardcore teraflops.
Isn't that what they already got?
1. Pentium M
2. Pentium 4M
3. Pentium 4
4. Pentium 4EE
5. Itanium??
Oh wait, you said make them RIGHT. Nevermind.
I would like to see a chip that would work as both mobile AND desktop...
I thought all of AMD's mobile chips were the same pinout as the regular desktop chips - which means you can use either one for either application?
Why do you have to decide to quit television? I don't watch TV, but I didn't make a decision to stop watching it. One day, it just dawned on me that I hadn't turned the thing on in months, and I wasn't missing it in the least. I just feel no need for TV.
Did Apple innovate the harddisk based MP3 player? No.
Yes, they did. They had a large capacity in a tiny size with faster transfer rates. That is the definition of innovation.
Go look up the Rio's and others that existed before the iPod. Apple made them smaller and faster, thus better. That's evolution, not innovation, not invention.
Sadly, it does seem to me that Apple is the only one out there that innovates and inspires.
Did Apple innovate the small form factor computer?
No.
Did Apple innovate the harddisk based MP3 player?
No.
Did Apple innovate the all-in-one computer?
No.
Apple is very good at taking niche market products, and making a version that's a hit with the masses. But I don't see a whole lot of innovation.
But, as a response to the original poster: Yes, Mac Mini sized PCs do exist, and the Cappuccino PC predates the Mac Mini.
As if the all-in-one iMac form factor computer was something that Apple invented. I distinctly remember Compaq Prolinea (sp?) 486 all-in-one computers, which crammed a CD-Rom, Floppy(!), and all the other needed parts into an oversized 14"-15" monitor. Picture here.
Likewise, a computer the size of a Mac Mini is hardly original - people have imagined stuff like that for years. Apple is just the first company to pull it off on such a large scale.
Please spec out an AMD64 which does all that while running under 22db of noise off an 85W power supply. Make sure to include firewire, USB2, and a DVD/CDRW. It doesn't need to look good, but cram it into a mini-ITX case.
Get back to us when you can do that for under $500.
Get back to us when you can spec out an Apple 64bit system, any 64bit system, for $500.
The company is their own worst enemy...since there biggest competitor traditionally is themselves.
Microsoft has retail stores?
find this interesting, every machine Apple sells except at the definite low end is dual CPU SMP now,
Huh? None of the iMacs are dual CPU. The Mac Mini certainly is not dual CPU. There are no dual CPU notebooks. You have to move to the PowerMac G5 to find a dual CPU system, where the cheapest dual CPU box costs $1,999. It sure looks like Apple to me that only Apple's high end* machines have dual CPU. Though, I guess you could say that none of Apple's high end machines (Powerbooks excepted) are single CPU.
Really though, with the popularity of hyperthreading, PCs are a little closer to dual CPU in the lower end machines where you can get a hyperthreading P4 for not that much money, and have a psuedo-dual setup.
*I guess you could say the stock dual 1.8Ghz PowerMac G5 is not high end, as it ships with an absolutely pathetic amount of ram for a $2000 machine. But that's another discussion.
I have a crappy Toshiba laptop that locks hard when Knoppix probes it for SCSI devices. Mandrake installs without a hitch, and Mepis boots up just fine, though it doesn't know what to do with the integrated graphics so I get lovely 640x480 resolution off the Live CD.
So just because a laptop can boot easily Knoppix doesn't mean it will easily boot your other favorite distro, and vice-versa.
Or, you could try this.
I've used PCs like that. 256MB is a bit on the low side, and there will be some disk grinding. But it's perfectly usuable. The biggest issue with old hardware like that is it takes a while to boot up. Once booted, a machine like that is great for web browsing, Office, and old games.
Another great thing about old systems like that is they are less than $100, often free. Not like used Macs that fetch insane prices (imho) for hopelessly obsolete hardware.
I use a G4 400Mhz with 10.3.something and 256MB of memory, and it's perfectly usuable too. To compare with a PC, it's more like Windows 2000 - it's happier with 512MB, but it'll run fine with 256MB. Not like XP, which does a lot of disk grinding with 256MB.
I do have most of the eye candy off though in OSX, if it makes a difference.