I don't know, while you probably have something about the price I think it's more about the software.
Nintendo has long made games that are actually fun rather than technology showcases. Most of the rest of the game industry has been making fairly poor software for way too long. They focus too much on using the latest and greatest technology (eg. graphics, sound) and skimp on the actual game design. I mean it sucks up a ton of effort to try and use the latest technology. To me it's wasted effort if the game is no fun.
But what do I know, I play the classics on my arcade machine more than any modern console and I still can't believe how popular "realistic" games are (you know Counter-Strike and similar). While they can be a fun diversion from time to time I mostly find them incredibly slow and boring, kinda like real life. You don't need an electronic game to play Counter-Strike. Go play paintball, airsoft, or train with real guns. All of which are more fun than Counter-Strike and require actual physical skill (in other words, it's more realistic than any "realistic" video game, duh).
Hey, the article summary started it on the freaking front page. That provided the bait.
Re:Now it's time to kill The Simpsons
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ya, Simpsons not so great any more. It's sometimes OK but there have been more stinkers than good shows for many years. I would hate to see it go off though, as bad as some episodes are they are still better than 99% of TV that's on nowadays.
Family Guy? Meh, if you've seen one episode you've seen 'em all. It's a cookie cutter show and every episode is nearly identical. It's like South Park or other "shock shows", meh... infantile, boring, and pointless.
American Dad? Meh, I have only watched bits and pieces but it wasn't that great. It has no hook.
Futurama, like Firefly, was really good. I hope they come back with as strong a showing as the original episodes. I want more episodes were Fry kicks ass, those are my favorite (Parasites Lost, The Devil's Hands are Idle Play Things). And I love the Populous episode (Godfellas). It's definately a geek show though, there are way too many smart and obscure references for the general population.
OpenSSL is not just an SSL API. It's a full cryptographic API. The socket stuff is not even in the core crypto library. There is libssl and then there is libcrypto. Both are part of OpenSSL.
OpenSSL is a misnomer.
I didn't mean "use SSL", I meant use OpenSSL the cryptographic library that supports all that standard stream ciphers. You can use whatever networking stuff you want outside of OpenSSL.
I know the API isn't the greatest and the documentation completely sucks but someone with OpenSSL knowledge could put together a SIP-friendly API in a couple hours.
At least then you're using a public, well hammered on API and would have a multitude of algorithms to choose from. I mean OpenSSL is used in tons of stuff and gets lots of field testing.
I have never understood the point of PGP with its proprietary crap formats when there are open, standardized formats for the stuff it is typically used for (S/MIME, X509, PKCS#12, etc.) and that are supported in standard applications rather than require some goofy PGP add-on.
Well, the Ubuntu "unstable" releases tend to be a lot less stable than Debian unstable. It's because they tweak so much stuff and are preparing for a stable release and expect a consistent environment for the upcoming release. Nothing wrong with that but the pre-releases don't tend to work that great until the beta is released.
No, that's not what I am saying. Bootloaders (any bootloader) can get screwed up if your drive changes. LILO is most sensitive, just changing a partition will make it freeze up. GRUB is not as bad but it still sometimes freaks out if the drive is in a state it doesn't expect. And when your bootloader freezes then you have no way to do anything without using a boot CD or something.
Yeah, I sort of agree. That's actually one thing I liked with Debian. Who cares if there is never a new version? The packages would still get updated. I miss that with Ubuntu.
I have to admit that Ubuntu has many nice useability tweaks over Debian though. Ubuntu is almost install and run without thinking about it. Debian still requires a bit of work in certain areas.
I really do wish there was an "unstable" Ubuntu though. Something where any new package can be stuffed, all bleeding edge junk like Debian unstable. I hate waiting months for another Ubuntu release when I want some newer version of something (eg. Breezy is still using Thunderbird/Firfox 1.0 when 1.5 has been out for ages; inline spelling, yum) and I dislike munging up my system by manually installing some newer version of a specific package.
This is exactly why I always install a Linux bootloader on the Linux partition. Never install a bootloader like GRUB or LILO on the master boot record for the whole drive.
However, MBR is extremely handy when put on the master boot record. I have never seen it fail, even on a completely borked drive. All it does is let you select which partition to boot from (or floppy). This can be extremely handy because there is no need to set the boot flag on your various paritions.
It's just the power to weight ratio. Being scratch built (I guess) I imagine this car weighs practically nothing. It's like a go-cart. That, and probably they have never actually tested it and their 4 second 0-60 is a guestimate. It's probably not really that fast.
However, any 12-second (1/4 mile) car will do 0-60 in around 4 seconds. 12 second cars are a dime a dozon in the racing world.
Put a relatively mild 200 HP engine in a 1500 lb car and there you go.
I have never stood in Aw of someone elses program. Ill commend their work and effort put into it, but I have never saw some code and went gee I could never do that.
I'm sorry, I have been following this thread and I have to say I doubt Mr. AC is some kind of super-programmer (could be, who knows) but what you said grates on me even more.
If you have not ever seen code that you were in awe of then you don't know software. You have not looked hard enough at the really great designs some people have come up with. This is how we learn, if you can't recognize great software then you have a long ways to go to be able to write great software. You could seriously improve yourself by being open and searching for those gems that are out there.
What you said is like looking at Picasso, Boris, or whatever and saying "meh, I could do that". Yeah, easy to say looking at the end product...
Re:JavaScript standards???
on
DOM Scripting
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Having just written a whole bunch of JavaScript, I couldn't agree more and I was thinking the same thing when I read the summary.
Trying to make stuff work with the various browsers is infuriating. Some things are the same, many things are not, or the behavior is just different enough to drive you insane trying to make everything work.
As I see it the problem is that the web is more and more becoming an application repository instead of static pictures and text (I know people have been saying this for years and it still applies). I mean that's the whole reason JavaScript and VBscript exist. The issue is that both JavaScript and VBscript are ad-hoc designs done by the major browser makers. We need standards like what ECMA is doing but ECMA doesn't go far enough. They need to define the GUI components and how they work in the scripting language. And the whole system needs to be made more powerful, currently the GUI functionality available in JavaScript/VBscript is substandard.
XUL sort of tries to solve this problem but again it's defined by a browser maker, good luck trying to get Microsoft to adopt that.
Listen, just about everyone has lost data with every filesystem. I have personally lost ext3 partitions that needed to be fschk'd and which after running for days it was never able to recover from and it corrupted the whole filesystem. I have had similar experiences with ReiserFS. Also, at least in my experience ReisferFS (3) tends to badly corrupt files when shut down improperly (UPS failure, etc.). I have tried JFS many times in the past and it never seemed stable, of course it has been a couple years but I gave up on it because it was too flakey.
I also tried XFS many times and in the early days it was a CPU hog and unstable. However, that has changed in the last couple years and I have been happily using XFS for almost everything. I currently have a little over 1TB running on XFS with no problems at all and this stuff gets hammered with multiple VMware machines and stuff transferring huge amounts of data to and from the video machine. They have survived hard power-offs and all sorts of things without a single lost file. The performance is good also. Mounting a huge Reiser disk takes forever, XFS is instant. mkfs.ext3 would fail when I tried to create a 600GB drive. I'm not saying XFS is perfect but I haven't had any problems with it.
Like anything that pounds on your feet, watch out for shin splints. Always wear good supportive shoes when playing for extended periods of time. Don't use soft mats and bare feet.
That is one bit of information that doesn't get passed around enough.
Of course kids are less susceptable than us older folk, just be careful because shin splints take forever to heal (if ever). I actually built a hard DDR pad that would allow me to use shoes because I got shin splints after playing DDR for 6-8 hours a day for three days straight (it's years later and they still flair up).
The main problems with Slashdot are the awful default color scheme combined with the awful layout. It looks so 90's early-web. It looks like a programmer come web-page-designer-wannabe made the page (which is probably not far from the truth). It's like looking at a nasty 70's green-screen console printout instead of a graphical web page (not due to lack of graphics, it's the layout). It's all the small finishing touches that are lacking. The columns don't line up, etc. They don't even need to change the design, they just need a professional designer to clean it up.
I won't do your research for you though. Just look around on the web and see what stuff looks and makes you feel good.
This has more truth than many of you think. Even though I'm as geeky as they come, it took years before I actually spent any real time on Slashdot. And it still looks the same as it did back then (ie. like ass).
I like Slashdot now but the look was a put-off for a long time.
Also do not touch the coated side of the disc. Cleaning the read-side isn't generally going to degrade it in any way, even if it's scratched those can be buffed out of the clear plastic. The problem is the other side of the disc. The colored/laminated side is the material that gets written to. It's not protected with a thick plastic coating like a real pressed CD. Touching, mashing, or exposing that laminated side to pretty much anything out of the ordinary will shorten the life of the disc.
Giving C a run for its money in some repects is not the same as running as fast as C. I know Java is pretty fast now but that's not my main concern. My main concern is the massive overhead involved with installing the runtime everywhere you need it.
Also being forced to use the garbage collector has a ton of overhead. If you have to create and destroy millions of objects quickly the Java VM will bloat out and kill the machine (an exageration but you get my point).
Java just has a lot of overhead and complexity that doesn't need to be there (I'm speaking of the massive and complex runtime environment).
Your attitude resembles what happens when your whole environment is Microsoft. Sure, everything seems great and everything works together nicely... That is, assuming the whole environment is Microsoft and everything is preinstalled and running for you. This attitude ignores the larger picture. The same is true with Java. If all you do is Java and you're surrounded by it and everything already has it installed and it's working then you think life is great. Or maybe everything is running on a server. The problem is that you are living in a bubble. As soon as you step out of that you start hitting problems.
I'm sorry... but what??? I guess there is no sense arguing this because I'm already getting bizarre answers.
Cross-platform byte code enables you to deploy the same application on your PC or Mac workstation and have it function exactly the same as on a 64-processor Ultra server. It also means your application is "future-proof". Deploy it now on a 32-bits machine, later on a 64-bits machine without recompiling AND run it at speeds comparable to native code.
My question is specifically about server-side Java. We all know Java failed on the desktop. "Future-proof"? That doesn't make any sense, most likely at some point that code will need to be updated or changed or something requiring a recompile. New API's come and go. Because it's on a static server that's no big deal. No big deal for a compiled language either. Do you expect to just compile your application once and never touch it again? No bugs? No updates for future technology? "Future-proof"? There is no such thing.
Believe it or not I can write 64-bit native applications as well.
Also, the language is easily picked up, simple to write and the API's are quite sane compared to a lot of other languages.
Now this was what my question was about. However, like I said, there is no reason you couldn't have a nice API in a native language.
What I don't understand is exactly what advantage is Java providing on the server-side. Do you really need cross-platform bytecode at that level?
Is it just because of the extensive Java API's? That seems unfortunate because you could have the same API's in a native compiled language and get much better performance. If it's a safety/security issue then again you could build the same thing in a native compiled language, sandbox and all. Native compiled languages are just as portable (or even more portable) as Java. The main problem is having to recompile for each platform, but on a static server that is no big deal.
To me it just seems like a huge waste to have the massive Java environment running bytecode on a static platform.
As a language Java is certainly not easier to use than the higher-level languages like PHP, Perl, Ruby, etc. It's very verbose and complicated (relatively speaking). I can understand using scripting languages, it's Java that doesn't make any sense.
I mean really, is it just because Java provides a lot of easy to use API's?
Just give me the $8k for two weeks testing and I guarantee that I will find so many problems that you'll be busy for months.
Otherwise, why would I bother participating in this just for the possibility of being paid?... I do all the work and someone else gets paid... right. I imagine everyone else with actual skill is thinking the same thing.
This could have been an awesome metric. However there are no older or low-end chips in the whole thing. (!)
I think the results might be really interesting because the low-end chips are really cheap compared to the top-dollar stuff.
For example, I have an AMD Mobile 2600+ that cost like $90 and when clocked at 2.4+ Ghz is damn near close to the performance of my Opteron 250 (which was $800 at the time) at many tasks. I would say the low-end Athlon would have more FPS/$ than the Opteron.
That's what I was hoping to see anyway. Now I'm sad after looking at the list of processors they used.
Yeah, I have used those before when I did work for Sun. I don't know if they have changed but I didn't like it much. It's in a regular laptop case, weighs about the same as an iBook, has about the same battery life, and not much better resolution. The thing is, it's not better than an iBook as far as thin-clients are concerned and in fact an iBook has a lot more functionality. It's like a half-hearted attempt at what I want.
They need to start with something at least as good as an iBook or IBM X40 and then strip stuff off plus add a higher-resolution screen.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, while you probably have something about the price I think it's more about the software.
Nintendo has long made games that are actually fun rather than technology showcases. Most of the rest of the game industry has been making fairly poor software for way too long. They focus too much on using the latest and greatest technology (eg. graphics, sound) and skimp on the actual game design. I mean it sucks up a ton of effort to try and use the latest technology. To me it's wasted effort if the game is no fun.
But what do I know, I play the classics on my arcade machine more than any modern console and I still can't believe how popular "realistic" games are (you know Counter-Strike and similar). While they can be a fun diversion from time to time I mostly find them incredibly slow and boring, kinda like real life. You don't need an electronic game to play Counter-Strike. Go play paintball, airsoft, or train with real guns. All of which are more fun than Counter-Strike and require actual physical skill (in other words, it's more realistic than any "realistic" video game, duh).
Hey, the article summary started it on the freaking front page. That provided the bait.
Ya, Simpsons not so great any more. It's sometimes OK but there have been more stinkers than good shows for many years. I would hate to see it go off though, as bad as some episodes are they are still better than 99% of TV that's on nowadays.
Family Guy? Meh, if you've seen one episode you've seen 'em all. It's a cookie cutter show and every episode is nearly identical. It's like South Park or other "shock shows", meh... infantile, boring, and pointless.
American Dad? Meh, I have only watched bits and pieces but it wasn't that great. It has no hook.
Futurama, like Firefly, was really good. I hope they come back with as strong a showing as the original episodes. I want more episodes were Fry kicks ass, those are my favorite (Parasites Lost, The Devil's Hands are Idle Play Things). And I love the Populous episode (Godfellas). It's definately a geek show though, there are way too many smart and obscure references for the general population.
OpenSSL is not just an SSL API. It's a full cryptographic API. The socket stuff is not even in the core crypto library. There is libssl and then there is libcrypto. Both are part of OpenSSL.
OpenSSL is a misnomer.
I didn't mean "use SSL", I meant use OpenSSL the cryptographic library that supports all that standard stream ciphers. You can use whatever networking stuff you want outside of OpenSSL.
I know the API isn't the greatest and the documentation completely sucks but someone with OpenSSL knowledge could put together a SIP-friendly API in a couple hours.
At least then you're using a public, well hammered on API and would have a multitude of algorithms to choose from. I mean OpenSSL is used in tons of stuff and gets lots of field testing.
I have never understood the point of PGP with its proprietary crap formats when there are open, standardized formats for the stuff it is typically used for (S/MIME, X509, PKCS#12, etc.) and that are supported in standard applications rather than require some goofy PGP add-on.
Well, the Ubuntu "unstable" releases tend to be a lot less stable than Debian unstable. It's because they tweak so much stuff and are preparing for a stable release and expect a consistent environment for the upcoming release. Nothing wrong with that but the pre-releases don't tend to work that great until the beta is released.
No, that's not what I am saying. Bootloaders (any bootloader) can get screwed up if your drive changes. LILO is most sensitive, just changing a partition will make it freeze up. GRUB is not as bad but it still sometimes freaks out if the drive is in a state it doesn't expect. And when your bootloader freezes then you have no way to do anything without using a boot CD or something.
Yeah, I sort of agree. That's actually one thing I liked with Debian. Who cares if there is never a new version? The packages would still get updated. I miss that with Ubuntu.
I have to admit that Ubuntu has many nice useability tweaks over Debian though. Ubuntu is almost install and run without thinking about it. Debian still requires a bit of work in certain areas.
I really do wish there was an "unstable" Ubuntu though. Something where any new package can be stuffed, all bleeding edge junk like Debian unstable. I hate waiting months for another Ubuntu release when I want some newer version of something (eg. Breezy is still using Thunderbird/Firfox 1.0 when 1.5 has been out for ages; inline spelling, yum) and I dislike munging up my system by manually installing some newer version of a specific package.
This is exactly why I always install a Linux bootloader on the Linux partition. Never install a bootloader like GRUB or LILO on the master boot record for the whole drive.
However, MBR is extremely handy when put on the master boot record. I have never seen it fail, even on a completely borked drive. All it does is let you select which partition to boot from (or floppy). This can be extremely handy because there is no need to set the boot flag on your various paritions.
It's just the power to weight ratio. Being scratch built (I guess) I imagine this car weighs practically nothing. It's like a go-cart. That, and probably they have never actually tested it and their 4 second 0-60 is a guestimate. It's probably not really that fast.
However, any 12-second (1/4 mile) car will do 0-60 in around 4 seconds. 12 second cars are a dime a dozon in the racing world.
Put a relatively mild 200 HP engine in a 1500 lb car and there you go.
It is still running in a sense (ie. it has power and "stuff" is happening). Just not the typical sense for a quantum computer.
Seems stupid to suggest it's "shut off" because it's not. I would consider "shut off" would mean it has no power flowing to it.
I have never stood in Aw of someone elses program. Ill commend their work and effort put into it, but I have never saw some code and went gee I could never do that.
I'm sorry, I have been following this thread and I have to say I doubt Mr. AC is some kind of super-programmer (could be, who knows) but what you said grates on me even more.
If you have not ever seen code that you were in awe of then you don't know software. You have not looked hard enough at the really great designs some people have come up with. This is how we learn, if you can't recognize great software then you have a long ways to go to be able to write great software. You could seriously improve yourself by being open and searching for those gems that are out there.
What you said is like looking at Picasso, Boris, or whatever and saying "meh, I could do that". Yeah, easy to say looking at the end product...
Having just written a whole bunch of JavaScript, I couldn't agree more and I was thinking the same thing when I read the summary.
Trying to make stuff work with the various browsers is infuriating. Some things are the same, many things are not, or the behavior is just different enough to drive you insane trying to make everything work.
As I see it the problem is that the web is more and more becoming an application repository instead of static pictures and text (I know people have been saying this for years and it still applies). I mean that's the whole reason JavaScript and VBscript exist. The issue is that both JavaScript and VBscript are ad-hoc designs done by the major browser makers. We need standards like what ECMA is doing but ECMA doesn't go far enough. They need to define the GUI components and how they work in the scripting language. And the whole system needs to be made more powerful, currently the GUI functionality available in JavaScript/VBscript is substandard.
XUL sort of tries to solve this problem but again it's defined by a browser maker, good luck trying to get Microsoft to adopt that.
Function optimization isn't processor specific, or am I missing something?
Use VTune, BoundsChecker, valgrind (not Windows), Purify, gprof, or any other profiler.
???
Listen, just about everyone has lost data with every filesystem. I have personally lost ext3 partitions that needed to be fschk'd and which after running for days it was never able to recover from and it corrupted the whole filesystem. I have had similar experiences with ReiserFS. Also, at least in my experience ReisferFS (3) tends to badly corrupt files when shut down improperly (UPS failure, etc.). I have tried JFS many times in the past and it never seemed stable, of course it has been a couple years but I gave up on it because it was too flakey.
I also tried XFS many times and in the early days it was a CPU hog and unstable. However, that has changed in the last couple years and I have been happily using XFS for almost everything. I currently have a little over 1TB running on XFS with no problems at all and this stuff gets hammered with multiple VMware machines and stuff transferring huge amounts of data to and from the video machine. They have survived hard power-offs and all sorts of things without a single lost file. The performance is good also. Mounting a huge Reiser disk takes forever, XFS is instant. mkfs.ext3 would fail when I tried to create a 600GB drive. I'm not saying XFS is perfect but I haven't had any problems with it.
Like anything that pounds on your feet, watch out for shin splints. Always wear good supportive shoes when playing for extended periods of time. Don't use soft mats and bare feet.
That is one bit of information that doesn't get passed around enough.
Of course kids are less susceptable than us older folk, just be careful because shin splints take forever to heal (if ever). I actually built a hard DDR pad that would allow me to use shoes because I got shin splints after playing DDR for 6-8 hours a day for three days straight (it's years later and they still flair up).
The main problems with Slashdot are the awful default color scheme combined with the awful layout. It looks so 90's early-web. It looks like a programmer come web-page-designer-wannabe made the page (which is probably not far from the truth). It's like looking at a nasty 70's green-screen console printout instead of a graphical web page (not due to lack of graphics, it's the layout). It's all the small finishing touches that are lacking. The columns don't line up, etc. They don't even need to change the design, they just need a professional designer to clean it up.
I won't do your research for you though. Just look around on the web and see what stuff looks and makes you feel good.
This has more truth than many of you think. Even though I'm as geeky as they come, it took years before I actually spent any real time on Slashdot. And it still looks the same as it did back then (ie. like ass).
I like Slashdot now but the look was a put-off for a long time.
Also do not touch the coated side of the disc. Cleaning the read-side isn't generally going to degrade it in any way, even if it's scratched those can be buffed out of the clear plastic. The problem is the other side of the disc. The colored/laminated side is the material that gets written to. It's not protected with a thick plastic coating like a real pressed CD. Touching, mashing, or exposing that laminated side to pretty much anything out of the ordinary will shorten the life of the disc.
Giving C a run for its money in some repects is not the same as running as fast as C. I know Java is pretty fast now but that's not my main concern. My main concern is the massive overhead involved with installing the runtime everywhere you need it.
Also being forced to use the garbage collector has a ton of overhead. If you have to create and destroy millions of objects quickly the Java VM will bloat out and kill the machine (an exageration but you get my point).
Java just has a lot of overhead and complexity that doesn't need to be there (I'm speaking of the massive and complex runtime environment).
Your attitude resembles what happens when your whole environment is Microsoft. Sure, everything seems great and everything works together nicely... That is, assuming the whole environment is Microsoft and everything is preinstalled and running for you. This attitude ignores the larger picture. The same is true with Java. If all you do is Java and you're surrounded by it and everything already has it installed and it's working then you think life is great. Or maybe everything is running on a server. The problem is that you are living in a bubble. As soon as you step out of that you start hitting problems.
I'm sorry... but what??? I guess there is no sense arguing this because I'm already getting bizarre answers.
Cross-platform byte code enables you to deploy the same application on your PC or Mac workstation and have it function exactly the same as on a 64-processor Ultra server. It also means your application is "future-proof". Deploy it now on a 32-bits machine, later on a 64-bits machine without recompiling AND run it at speeds comparable to native code.
My question is specifically about server-side Java. We all know Java failed on the desktop. "Future-proof"? That doesn't make any sense, most likely at some point that code will need to be updated or changed or something requiring a recompile. New API's come and go. Because it's on a static server that's no big deal. No big deal for a compiled language either. Do you expect to just compile your application once and never touch it again? No bugs? No updates for future technology? "Future-proof"? There is no such thing.
Believe it or not I can write 64-bit native applications as well.
Also, the language is easily picked up, simple to write and the API's are quite sane compared to a lot of other languages.
Now this was what my question was about. However, like I said, there is no reason you couldn't have a nice API in a native language.
What I don't understand is exactly what advantage is Java providing on the server-side. Do you really need cross-platform bytecode at that level?
Is it just because of the extensive Java API's? That seems unfortunate because you could have the same API's in a native compiled language and get much better performance. If it's a safety/security issue then again you could build the same thing in a native compiled language, sandbox and all. Native compiled languages are just as portable (or even more portable) as Java. The main problem is having to recompile for each platform, but on a static server that is no big deal.
To me it just seems like a huge waste to have the massive Java environment running bytecode on a static platform.
As a language Java is certainly not easier to use than the higher-level languages like PHP, Perl, Ruby, etc. It's very verbose and complicated (relatively speaking). I can understand using scripting languages, it's Java that doesn't make any sense.
I mean really, is it just because Java provides a lot of easy to use API's?
Just give me the $8k for two weeks testing and I guarantee that I will find so many problems that you'll be busy for months.
... I do all the work and someone else gets paid... right. I imagine everyone else with actual skill is thinking the same thing.
Otherwise, why would I bother participating in this just for the possibility of being paid?
This could have been an awesome metric. However there are no older or low-end chips in the whole thing. (!)
I think the results might be really interesting because the low-end chips are really cheap compared to the top-dollar stuff.
For example, I have an AMD Mobile 2600+ that cost like $90 and when clocked at 2.4+ Ghz is damn near close to the performance of my Opteron 250 (which was $800 at the time) at many tasks. I would say the low-end Athlon would have more FPS/$ than the Opteron.
That's what I was hoping to see anyway. Now I'm sad after looking at the list of processors they used.
Yeah, I have used those before when I did work for Sun. I don't know if they have changed but I didn't like it much. It's in a regular laptop case, weighs about the same as an iBook, has about the same battery life, and not much better resolution. The thing is, it's not better than an iBook as far as thin-clients are concerned and in fact an iBook has a lot more functionality. It's like a half-hearted attempt at what I want.
They need to start with something at least as good as an iBook or IBM X40 and then strip stuff off plus add a higher-resolution screen.