How many car dealerships have you seen that sold more than one manufacturer's product at a single location? Sure, there are dealership networks that have dealership locations for multiple manufacturers. But when was the last time you could go to Jim-Bob's Ford and buy a Chevy? When did you ever see Jim-Bob's Honda, Ford, and VW dealership? You've never seen these things because of these laws.
I'm not sure what happened exactly, but you used to see things like that. I remember one dealer that used to sell Buicks, Nissans, and Kias at the same location. However, this seem to come to end sometime around the late 90's and early 2000's, and all the "mixed brand" dealers picked one brand and dropped the others (the above example nowadays only sells Nissan).
You can get back the Windows 2000 style start menu in XP. Funny thing is, you can also get the Windows 2000 style start menu back in Vista/7, but not the XP one which is unique to XP.
Windows is fine with higher DPI screens. Actually, they are better than OS X which pretty much restricts you to 200% scaling, which is why their high DPI screens are exactly 2x the dimensions of a common resolution (i.e. 2880x1800 - 1440x900) because OS X couldn't handle an intermediate setting well. The problem with Windows is the applications. but really it's the backwards compatibility that's biting Windows in the ass. Apple conveniently gets around this by constantly breaking compatibility so that you aren't going to be running anything older than a few years on a recent Macbook. But in the Microsoft world, you can still install and run that old application from Windows 98 which naturally doesn't know about DPI scaling and thus of course looks like crap when Windows tries to scale it. But unlike on OSX, the program will still generally run and you can still use it, even if it's ugly.
The big problem was that Apple and Intel made some deal where Thunderbolt would be exclusive to Macs until (if I remember right) the end of 2011 before anyone else would be allowed to use it. So while it may be a "standard" now, for a while it was truly an Apple-only port which is why many people still think it's propriety.
Honestly, I don't know why Intel would make a deal like that. Many people wisely avoid the propriety garbage Apple likes to push out, so what's the point of giving Apple exclusive early access to a new standard, therefore fooling people into thinking it's just some propriety crap Apple came up with and ignoring it?
eSATA is just a SATA connection with a different plug, so unless they make native Thunderbolt hard drives, eSATA will be the fastest connection available (perhaps save for SCSI).
Unfortunately, if it's someone else's code that got dumped in your lap, you're pretty much stuck figuring out what crazy stuff the original programmer(s) managed to do with C++.
Also, when they fail they normally become read-only, so you can copy everything over to a replacement drive
What actually happens is that some of the blocks go "bad" while others are still "good", so your writes will still partially work. Of course, most of the time the drive won't check to make sure that the data actually got written (true for HDDs too) so unless you're running DOS and always use the/V option with the copy command(*), by the time you realize that your writes haven't been completing you're probably at the point where you've already got massive data corruption. Which is only made worse by the wear-leveling mechanisms which generally aren't smart enough to realize that they really should stop doing their thing at this point and will continue to hamper your efforts to recover any data from the drive by slowly corrupting your data any time the drive is powered on.
That's all assuming though that you don't have the controller just die and everything suddenly go *poof*.
So what on earth leads you to believe that a SSD controller, a silicon integrated circuit, is inherently more likely to fail catastrophically than a HDD controller, also a silicon integrated circuit?
Given the massive controller issues that many early SSDs have had, such as stuttering, data corrupting firmware bugs, hard lockups, and the like, they just don't seem nearly as well designed or mature as the controllers found on typical hard drives?
"A later hardware update created a sleeker design. This second-generation iMac featured a slot-loading optical drive, FireWire, "fanless" operation (through free convection cooling), and the option of AirPort wireless networking. Apple continued to sell this line of iMacs until March 2003, mainly to customers who wanted the ability to run the older Mac OS 9 operating system."
With Netburst Intel created a chip with a long pipeline that was inefficient on a per-clock basis, but the idea was that the design would allow fast clock speeds. Or in other words, while the Netburst may not do well against an AMD chip clocked at the same speed, it wouldn't matter if Intel was pushing 5+ GHz and AMD was still struggling to hit 2 GHz. Unfortunately for Intel, things didn't work that well and since high clock speeds required more power their chips had a tendency to run a but warm so the design topped out just past 3 GHz. Intel tried to take it even further and lengthen the pipeline more in an attempt to up the clock speeds with the Prescott core, but all that really did was make the chips even less efficient and while they were able to bump up the clock speeds a bit, it didn't even get them to 4 GHz. On the upside though, the long pipeline allowed for Intel to implement Hyperthreading, which admittedly is a pretty neat trick.
From what I've seen some higher-end newer fridges have replaced the knob that controls the temperature with a small panel with push buttons and a display. It's probably not even as "smart" as a $15 digital house thermostat but there you go.
The heat from even a modest computer would overwhelm the cooling capacity of a typical mini-fridge. Most likely you would end up cooking the components followed by burning out the compressor on the fridge (since it would end up running continuously in a vain attempt to cool its contents). On the upside, condensation would likely not be a problem.
Besides, it's also possible that one of the third parties will get powerful enough to replace one of the two major parties. It's already happened once in US history.
This has been asked and answered many times here. 1080 because that's what the lowest common denominators LCD makers put out these days. LCD^2..
This has to be a custom-made screen pretty much only for this device. I mean, you don't see 1080p TVs under 22", and you don't see 1080p desktop monitors at 18" either, meanwhile 18" is too big for laptops. So it's not like they just shoved some mass-produced 1080p 18" panel in there. So if it's a custom job, why 1080p?
It's 1920x1080, which is the same resolution of just about every monitor up to 27". So unless you want to step up to a rather bulky 27" (or 30"), there really isn't any benefit of the larger screen other than wasted desk space.
Why do you need to spend that kind of money? You can screw around with Windows Server, Exchange, and SQL Server on an old P4. It's not like you have to support hundreds of users with your home test machine.
For a long time, GM had only had something like 12 unique keys for their cars. So in any decent sized parking lot, you probably had several cars that would start with the same key.
That doesn't really make much sense. Your Northwood PC was a Socket 478 machine. Intel came out with this socket when AMD was in the middle of the long-lived Socket A era, and Intel stuck with it while AMD went through Sockets 754 (which was pretty short-lived) and 939. When DDR2 came out both Intel and AMD came out with new sockets. Intel created LGA775, which was another fairly long-lived socket as it spanned the later P4's, the Pentium D, then the Core 2 Duo (including the Conroe) and the Core 2 Quad. Granted AMD came out with AM2 at the same time which maintained some lineage of compatibility through AM2+, AM3, and AM3+. However, I will admit that Intel has been crapping out new sockets at an alarming rate now, but AMD has also gone through a few recently themselves.
It's possible that on your laptop, the GPU is doing the scaling (scales the 1280x800 to 1680x1050 then sends the higher resolution to the screen). GPUs are generally much better at it than the scalers built into the screens. This can also be done on desktops if you have the right graphics card.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what happened exactly, but you used to see things like that. I remember one dealer that used to sell Buicks, Nissans, and Kias at the same location. However, this seem to come to end sometime around the late 90's and early 2000's, and all the "mixed brand" dealers picked one brand and dropped the others (the above example nowadays only sells Nissan).
You can get back the Windows 2000 style start menu in XP. Funny thing is, you can also get the Windows 2000 style start menu back in Vista/7, but not the XP one which is unique to XP.
Besides, it would seem he does have plenty of paperwork. Linked from TFA:
http://www.imsai.net/movies/provenance.htm
Windows is fine with higher DPI screens. Actually, they are better than OS X which pretty much restricts you to 200% scaling, which is why their high DPI screens are exactly 2x the dimensions of a common resolution (i.e. 2880x1800 - 1440x900) because OS X couldn't handle an intermediate setting well. The problem with Windows is the applications. but really it's the backwards compatibility that's biting Windows in the ass. Apple conveniently gets around this by constantly breaking compatibility so that you aren't going to be running anything older than a few years on a recent Macbook. But in the Microsoft world, you can still install and run that old application from Windows 98 which naturally doesn't know about DPI scaling and thus of course looks like crap when Windows tries to scale it. But unlike on OSX, the program will still generally run and you can still use it, even if it's ugly.
I believe the Panasonic Toughbooks are still 16:10.
If it doesn't support Windows 8 it likely won't support any later versions of Windows either.
The big problem was that Apple and Intel made some deal where Thunderbolt would be exclusive to Macs until (if I remember right) the end of 2011 before anyone else would be allowed to use it. So while it may be a "standard" now, for a while it was truly an Apple-only port which is why many people still think it's propriety.
Honestly, I don't know why Intel would make a deal like that. Many people wisely avoid the propriety garbage Apple likes to push out, so what's the point of giving Apple exclusive early access to a new standard, therefore fooling people into thinking it's just some propriety crap Apple came up with and ignoring it?
eSATA is just a SATA connection with a different plug, so unless they make native Thunderbolt hard drives, eSATA will be the fastest connection available (perhaps save for SCSI).
You can't select 640x480 but Windows will boot up in it if it as a fallback if it thinks it has to.
Unfortunately, if it's someone else's code that got dumped in your lap, you're pretty much stuck figuring out what crazy stuff the original programmer(s) managed to do with C++.
What actually happens is that some of the blocks go "bad" while others are still "good", so your writes will still partially work. Of course, most of the time the drive won't check to make sure that the data actually got written (true for HDDs too) so unless you're running DOS and always use the /V option with the copy command(*), by the time you realize that your writes haven't been completing you're probably at the point where you've already got massive data corruption. Which is only made worse by the wear-leveling mechanisms which generally aren't smart enough to realize that they really should stop doing their thing at this point and will continue to hamper your efforts to recover any data from the drive by slowly corrupting your data any time the drive is powered on.
That's all assuming though that you don't have the controller just die and everything suddenly go *poof*.
(*) also recommended for use with floppy disks.
Given the massive controller issues that many early SSDs have had, such as stuttering, data corrupting firmware bugs, hard lockups, and the like, they just don't seem nearly as well designed or mature as the controllers found on typical hard drives?
"A later hardware update created a sleeker design. This second-generation iMac featured a slot-loading optical drive, FireWire, "fanless" operation (through free convection cooling), and the option of AirPort wireless networking. Apple continued to sell this line of iMacs until March 2003, mainly to customers who wanted the ability to run the older Mac OS 9 operating system."
With Netburst Intel created a chip with a long pipeline that was inefficient on a per-clock basis, but the idea was that the design would allow fast clock speeds. Or in other words, while the Netburst may not do well against an AMD chip clocked at the same speed, it wouldn't matter if Intel was pushing 5+ GHz and AMD was still struggling to hit 2 GHz. Unfortunately for Intel, things didn't work that well and since high clock speeds required more power their chips had a tendency to run a but warm so the design topped out just past 3 GHz. Intel tried to take it even further and lengthen the pipeline more in an attempt to up the clock speeds with the Prescott core, but all that really did was make the chips even less efficient and while they were able to bump up the clock speeds a bit, it didn't even get them to 4 GHz. On the upside though, the long pipeline allowed for Intel to implement Hyperthreading, which admittedly is a pretty neat trick.
From what I've seen some higher-end newer fridges have replaced the knob that controls the temperature with a small panel with push buttons and a display. It's probably not even as "smart" as a $15 digital house thermostat but there you go.
The heat from even a modest computer would overwhelm the cooling capacity of a typical mini-fridge. Most likely you would end up cooking the components followed by burning out the compressor on the fridge (since it would end up running continuously in a vain attempt to cool its contents). On the upside, condensation would likely not be a problem.
Besides, it's also possible that one of the third parties will get powerful enough to replace one of the two major parties. It's already happened once in US history.
This has to be a custom-made screen pretty much only for this device. I mean, you don't see 1080p TVs under 22", and you don't see 1080p desktop monitors at 18" either, meanwhile 18" is too big for laptops. So it's not like they just shoved some mass-produced 1080p 18" panel in there. So if it's a custom job, why 1080p?
It's 1920x1080, which is the same resolution of just about every monitor up to 27". So unless you want to step up to a rather bulky 27" (or 30"), there really isn't any benefit of the larger screen other than wasted desk space.
Why do you need to spend that kind of money? You can screw around with Windows Server, Exchange, and SQL Server on an old P4. It's not like you have to support hundreds of users with your home test machine.
Just wait until the client decides they want the olympic-sized swimming pool on the 167th floor.
For a long time, GM had only had something like 12 unique keys for their cars. So in any decent sized parking lot, you probably had several cars that would start with the same key.
That doesn't really make much sense. Your Northwood PC was a Socket 478 machine. Intel came out with this socket when AMD was in the middle of the long-lived Socket A era, and Intel stuck with it while AMD went through Sockets 754 (which was pretty short-lived) and 939. When DDR2 came out both Intel and AMD came out with new sockets. Intel created LGA775, which was another fairly long-lived socket as it spanned the later P4's, the Pentium D, then the Core 2 Duo (including the Conroe) and the Core 2 Quad. Granted AMD came out with AM2 at the same time which maintained some lineage of compatibility through AM2+, AM3, and AM3+. However, I will admit that Intel has been crapping out new sockets at an alarming rate now, but AMD has also gone through a few recently themselves.
Yes, and there are use cases where a giant V8 pickup truck is functionally the same as a Kia. But don't pretend they are the same.
It's possible that on your laptop, the GPU is doing the scaling (scales the 1280x800 to 1680x1050 then sends the higher resolution to the screen). GPUs are generally much better at it than the scalers built into the screens. This can also be done on desktops if you have the right graphics card.