Yeah, my times estimate was for my a1200 with 030, 8MB fast and 1.7 GB 3.5" NEC HDD. Could have been from floppies to but I think the usual 8 or 12 seconds I measured some time was on the a1200. Was quite a few years since I booted it up the last time. I hope the drive isn't dead.
Yeah, I just close the lid on my MBP and open it up when I want to use it as well, working and (quite) reliable sleep rules!
I never used sleep before because either I ran some weird OS and I have no idea if it was even implemented or I tried it a couple of times in Windows but since most of the times the computer couldn't boot and the information would be lost by a hard reset I never trusted it and ended up never using it seriously.
I belive my Amiga booted in 8 seconds before I added all the patches, tools and accessories you wanted.. If you aborted the shell before loading Workbench you would probably shave off two-three seconds more...
I realise it's not a viable alternative today, but it's kind of sad how bad things develop considering how much faster todays machines is.
Reminds me of a youtube video with a Mac Classic running Claris Works (or something similar) and a more modern PC running Office Word or whatever, boot systems booting up, running the word processor and then writing something (and eventually saving and turning the machine of as well.) Of course the new software is much more advanced, but the old mac did it faster.. And sometimes people don't need much more than that application offered.
A "mac" is something Apple-branded which run OS X, an x86 running OS X or a Apple-branded machine running Windows isn't really "macs" in my view.
A Macintosh running Windows is just like any other PC, except more expensive and with stupid specs in most cases.
No, but Cider doesn't require any work from them, one can even "make ones own mac games" with it if one want to.. But yeah, it suck, better than nothing I guess, but together with worse OpenGL performance and shitty graphics cards it probably don't ends up very nice...
I've heard OpenGL in OS X isn't as fast and up to date as it is in Windows, may have changed with Leopard but I wouldn't be amazed if it was still the truth. Also I think OpenGL don't support all things DirectX do. And there is probably a reason developers choose to code for DirectX.
But as I said Apple meets the people at Valve (and probably other companies to) every now and then but then they don't bring anything they take home and fix it. Because, as I said, Apple don't care about games, it seems. The lame WWDC announcement which was all about "oh EA will use Cider" don't change that, they still suck.
Ok, I thought the iMacs still had the HD 2600s, must have missed one iMac upgrade, or not cared =P.
Yeah, decent card, but you had to pay plenty for the machine, I would be happy with my 8600m GT as well if it had 256MB vram, but 128 MB is just retarded. I almost use all my vram not doing a shit in my desktop ffs, Aperture runs like shit, and so on. (I use Lightroom instead..) Of course one could say "well then why did you buy it?", because I had wanted a mac for so fucking long and I didn't bought the revision before because I decided 128MB vram was to shitty back then. But then I couldn't decide if I should really pay 700 dollar more for more vram (I don't care about 10% faster cpu and 40GB HDD thank you..) or way yet another revision, just in case 256MB vram would be the default, and lose my 99 $ for ADC student and pay 25% more for the mac...
So in the end I decided to buy it anyway... knewing it suck, but I would get my ass raped by Apple no matter what I choosed, which is why they suck and it's so much smarter to run a hack, though I'd prefer to support Apple for giving us an alternative, but there is a limit for how bad they can play with my support =P
I've had no problem with custom PCs, and run lots of OSes, I do have had problems with things not working in them of course. But for instance I hate all the memory leaks in Safari and how fucking slow my MBP feels and how hot it gets, how shitty the audio out is, how it don't have a regular optical out, how the viewing angles suck, how the resolution is low and crappy, how the keys scratch against the LCD when it's closed, how bad the keys feels without the iSkin...
And probably a couple of other things;) (for instance how iTunes is more or less the only audio choice you have except things like VLC, and it suck because you can't seem to get mod/xm/s3m/.. plugins for it, how iPhoto suck, how iPhoto and Aperture can't use the same image database, how iTunes except to keep track on your songs (adding them to the play list and then have them remain there even if you remove or move them..) even if you don't use it's library thingy, how you don't get Quicktime Pro for free,.. =P
Well, I had issues with this one and wanted to return it, got it the 30 or 31st august but had waited all the time but at the 27th I decided to contact them, couldn't find there and so on so time went on to the 28th and then I finally found it it said I was out of warranty (probably because it was one year from their shipping and not from when I received it.) I don't know if it should be one year form when I received it but I haven't bothered contacting them again yet.
The reason I wait is obviously for a couple of reasons of which having to get an external disk for backup, cleaning out this
Retard, this part of the thread talks about how Warhammer isn't available for macs.
So then if you played warhammer on your iMac did you do it in OS X? No, obviously not, you did it in Windows. Did I say Windows/Microsoft don't care about games? No, I did not.
OS X isn't very good for games, macs isn't very good for games.
Windows and the coders behind the game made that possible, not Apple.
And you can get a ATI HD4670 for around $100 and it would play the game better than your iMac did.
(Also I really doubt the game would run as a decent frame rate with lots of action with those settings, but what do I know. I do however know that I have to play Warcraft III on my MBP with 8600m GT 128MB IN OS X at like 1024x768 all medium to not get to much lag in big fights, and it's a very old game.)
So case in point: * OS X isn't good for games. You played in Windows. * Macs isn't good for games. You could play the game in Windows but with a PC for a similar amount with a much better graphic card the game would had run much better.
Simple as that. But don't be sad, you're just yet another mac guy who don't understand shit.
I longed for a mac for years after the Amiga seemed dead and Windows 95/98 sucked as soon as OS X was released and I read about it. But I couldn't afford one.
And when I finally could I was so upset about the crappy graphics and displays on the iMacs. Finally I "had" to buy this MBP because I had already paid for ADC student membership and it would be my last chance to get 20% off but I was so fucking upset when they only had 128 MB vram at that release of it as well.
So fucking retarded, and I would have had to pay comparable to 700 dollar more to get 256 MB, which would probably be worth like 60 dollar if anything. But no, this is Apple so they have to force you to get a much more premium/even more ridiculously expensive model to get a decent machine.
I didn't wanted to fall for that trick, so here I am with my 128 MB vram MBP, which indeed SUCK FOR GAMES. And the people behind halflife2 said in an interview that APPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR REQUESTS. THEY HAVE A MEETING EVERY NOW AND THEN WHERE APPLE TALK TO THEM BUT THEN THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ANYWAY BECAUSE APPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT GAMING.
But I always get modded down for telling the truth, mac fanatics suck because they are so fucking busy licking Steves ass that they can't think for themself. However that won't stop me from telling things as they are, I've got karma to burn, and it's not my fault Apple users can't accept anything negative.
Apple needs more competition, as it is now they kind of have the best OS around anyway so they don't need to care, at least that's how they seem to think.
If Vista wouldn't had become such a huge disappointment I guess it would had put some more speed on Apple. Though if there comes a really superior version of Windows (and XP isn't that bad..) I'm not sure how Apple are supposed to catch up again. Taking another OS as part for their next one won't work so well, because, well, there kind of isn't any other good and complete to take.
And yes, all the 950 GMA bullshit is more or less an insult, acceptable I guess but anything even very low end like a radeon 9200 or such would had been better.
MBP should never had 128 MB vram, 8600m GT with 128 MB vram? Hello? Can someone imagine how a game which the GPU would be capable to run but which would need more ram for textures than 128 MB? I can. 20" low-end iMac shouldn't had 128 MB vram.
iMacs should have one step better gfx or some kind of slot for them yes with options to upgrade.
Just throwing the machine away to upgrade to a new one more capable of playing games gets even more absurd when your machine also contain your 24" display...
(And there is a lot of retarded mac people which just say how macs isn't for games and how people who want to play games shouldn't buy one... but well, one can't want a mac even if one also play games? They wouldn't play games every now and then if they actually had the possibility? They don't believe more people would buy macs if they could really play games? I don't see the problem, but obviously there is one.)
Fuck Apple users, and Apple, and moderators on Slashdot.
Obviously since THERE ARE NO GAMES FOR MACS (and no you don't have to answer and mention the games which exists, I already know one can play a very limited amount of games in OS X, but it's nowhere close enough to keep gamers happy, and they run at worse performance, and macs come with shitty graphics, and are overpriced, and Apple don't care about gaming. So..)
As/if Apple gains market share, the games will come.
Would be nice if Apple understood that if Apple gained games share, the market would come.... How many computer buyers which actually DO buy premium systems don't buy a mac just for this fact that macs suck for gaming? Stupid Apple. But at least they sell well of mediocre mp3 players.
... though it's not EAs or anyone else fault except Apples that Apple don't try to make macs and os x good for games.. Well, maybe all the stupid mac fanboys which yells "omg i'm so fucking pro I don't need games, in fact I hate games, I have penis, macs is not for games, buy a PC if you like games!!"... like it would somehow magically hurt them if macs could run games as well. Mac fanboys are a weird species.
See my response to the grand parent post as well, if 950 GMA is not supported it's even more of a hint that also spore is just a cider emulation of the Windows game and not an actual mac game. Cider don't run games on 950 GMA.
Because switching between oses suck? And if you don't mind you could just run linux/freebsd and Windows instead of getting a mac in the first place.
I wanted a mac because it would be a different os but still run commercial software. I thought I'd like the OS more though, as it's now I'm not sure I like it better than FreeBSD + KDE.
... or call it "distributors license", show the text and just put an Ok-button there. Nothing to agree to if you are just a user, just show the text and let them click thru it.
As have been said before in the case of GPL you are free to not accept the license, but that only makes you give up more rights than you would have had if you had accepted it. So no need to return it, and you can still use it, you more or less just lost the right to modify and distribute your modified product.
"Additional rights information"? =P
Though I guess in a country with no copyright laws it may actually be more restrictive.
Not that weird considering that's how it all was done before... Even on the Amiga you don't have that much to help you get things done once you don't draw windows in Workbench.
The obvious benefit is of course that you do only what you want/need to do and not a bunch of other stuff.
I doubt we'll see specialized chips (in the same physical chip or not remains to be seen I guess) removed totally though. It's not like someone is saying "oh well let's remove this special purpose stuff which can run a few other instructs really fast and only focus on x86", no matter how it's done we'll probably see much better performance for useful instructions. So I don't know if it makes sense to say that the GPU will go away, get integrated, reimplemented, transformed for more general work, blended with a general purpose processor, transformed, whatever, yes, of course it will. But why getting rid of specialized units which do their job very well?
(Or well, at least diagnosed, though I doubt it myself. May just be your average nerd which feel uncomfortable with new people. Not sure if aspergers count as much as a "disease" as a personality either though.)
I'd much rather take a high definition small sharp screen than a shitty definition huge piece of shit though;D, guess we are different.
Size isn't all that important, you just have to come closer, that's what I would tell her, if I had a girlfriend that is. (Knowing I'm going towards the off topic moderation I guess I would pick girlfriend as monitors, rather high def and small than low def and huge:D)
Anyway at washed out at 11" I don't see why anyone would get this, if it's for a toy it must be made much cheaper. You can get an LCD with much better picture obviously for less (if you get 17"... I don't know where to get 12" or so and they may cost more;/)
Anyway, the point was that no one can complain that an LCD is inconvenient anyway because how fucking convenient is it to get a 11" single tone and color area and something to put your projector on? Yes that's right! Not very!:D
The eeePC probably outperforms this and can hold it's own movies as well! Not to mention decode them!;D
From looking at those linked screenshots all I can say is it looks like shit, way to much colors and weird objects in the scene. Those statues from Rapa Nui, ballons in different colors and so on. Wtf?
Sure I guess some of them may be ok in an "urban setting" but it draws away your attention. Way to much information and things to look at in once imho.
Give me starcraft 2 already =P, though I guess it's hard to compare oneself to a title like that:)
I'm well aware it probably don't contain any sort of controller, but still $50 is really expensive, I have no idea what the components may cost but probably not much in the amount of 1000+.
What I wanted to say as well, $50 at this date for something that shitty is expensive as hell, you get a replacement touchscreen LCD for the DS for like 3.5 dollar or something, and that one is 18 bit 256x192. Who cares about text on LCDs of today? You can probably get that Logitech keyboard with display for that price and use that instead...
I don't see why they would make a complete global network for every "important" on the Internet, pretty retarded if you ask me, or well, unrealistic at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, my times estimate was for my a1200 with 030, 8MB fast and 1.7 GB 3.5" NEC HDD. Could have been from floppies to but I think the usual 8 or 12 seconds I measured some time was on the a1200. Was quite a few years since I booted it up the last time. I hope the drive isn't dead.
Yeah, I just close the lid on my MBP and open it up when I want to use it as well, working and (quite) reliable sleep rules!
I never used sleep before because either I ran some weird OS and I have no idea if it was even implemented or I tried it a couple of times in Windows but since most of the times the computer couldn't boot and the information would be lost by a hard reset I never trusted it and ended up never using it seriously.
I belive my Amiga booted in 8 seconds before I added all the patches, tools and accessories you wanted .. If you aborted the shell before loading Workbench you would probably shave off two-three seconds more ...
Had some miniemacs with the OS, and it seems it can use fat32:
http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/fat32.html
You can get USB aswell:
http://www.amigau.com/c-amiga/hardware.htm
I realise it's not a viable alternative today, but it's kind of sad how bad things develop considering how much faster todays machines is.
Reminds me of a youtube video with a Mac Classic running Claris Works (or something similar) and a more modern PC running Office Word or whatever, boot systems booting up, running the word processor and then writing something (and eventually saving and turning the machine of as well.) .. And sometimes people don't need much more than that application offered.
Of course the new software is much more advanced, but the old mac did it faster
A "mac" is something Apple-branded which run OS X, an x86 running OS X or a Apple-branded machine running Windows isn't really "macs" in my view.
A Macintosh running Windows is just like any other PC, except more expensive and with stupid specs in most cases.
No, but Cider doesn't require any work from them, one can even "make ones own mac games" with it if one want to .. But yeah, it suck, better than nothing I guess, but together with worse OpenGL performance and shitty graphics cards it probably don't ends up very nice ...
I've heard OpenGL in OS X isn't as fast and up to date as it is in Windows, may have changed with Leopard but I wouldn't be amazed if it was still the truth. Also I think OpenGL don't support all things DirectX do. And there is probably a reason developers choose to code for DirectX.
But as I said Apple meets the people at Valve (and probably other companies to) every now and then but then they don't bring anything they take home and fix it. Because, as I said, Apple don't care about games, it seems. The lame WWDC announcement which was all about "oh EA will use Cider" don't change that, they still suck.
Ok, I thought the iMacs still had the HD 2600s, must have missed one iMac upgrade, or not cared =P.
Yeah, decent card, but you had to pay plenty for the machine, I would be happy with my 8600m GT as well if it had 256MB vram, but 128 MB is just retarded. I almost use all my vram not doing a shit in my desktop ffs, Aperture runs like shit, and so on. (I use Lightroom instead ..) ...
Of course one could say "well then why did you buy it?", because I had wanted a mac for so fucking long and I didn't bought the revision before because I decided 128MB vram was to shitty back then. But then I couldn't decide if I should really pay 700 dollar more for more vram (I don't care about 10% faster cpu and 40GB HDD thank you..) or way yet another revision, just in case 256MB vram would be the default, and lose my 99 $ for ADC student and pay 25% more for the mac
So in the end I decided to buy it anyway... knewing it suck, but I would get my ass raped by Apple no matter what I choosed, which is why they suck and it's so much smarter to run a hack, though I'd prefer to support Apple for giving us an alternative, but there is a limit for how bad they can play with my support =P
I've had no problem with custom PCs, and run lots of OSes, I do have had problems with things not working in them of course. But for instance I hate all the memory leaks in Safari and how fucking slow my MBP feels and how hot it gets, how shitty the audio out is, how it don't have a regular optical out, how the viewing angles suck, how the resolution is low and crappy, how the keys scratch against the LCD when it's closed, how bad the keys feels without the iSkin...
And probably a couple of other things ;) (for instance how iTunes is more or less the only audio choice you have except things like VLC, and it suck because you can't seem to get mod/xm/s3m/.. plugins for it, how iPhoto suck, how iPhoto and Aperture can't use the same image database, how iTunes except to keep track on your songs (adding them to the play list and then have them remain there even if you remove or move them..) even if you don't use it's library thingy, how you don't get Quicktime Pro for free, .. =P
Well, I had issues with this one and wanted to return it, got it the 30 or 31st august but had waited all the time but at the 27th I decided to contact them, couldn't find there and so on so time went on to the 28th and then I finally found it it said I was out of warranty (probably because it was one year from their shipping and not from when I received it.)
I don't know if it should be one year form when I received it but I haven't bothered contacting them again yet.
The reason I wait is obviously for a couple of reasons of which having to get an external disk for backup, cleaning out this
Retard, this part of the thread talks about how Warhammer isn't available for macs.
So then if you played warhammer on your iMac did you do it in OS X? No, obviously not, you did it in Windows. Did I say Windows/Microsoft don't care about games? No, I did not.
OS X isn't very good for games, macs isn't very good for games.
Windows and the coders behind the game made that possible, not Apple.
And you can get a ATI HD4670 for around $100 and it would play the game better than your iMac did.
(Also I really doubt the game would run as a decent frame rate with lots of action with those settings, but what do I know.
I do however know that I have to play Warcraft III on my MBP with 8600m GT 128MB IN OS X at like 1024x768 all medium to not get to much lag in big fights, and it's a very old game.)
So case in point:
* OS X isn't good for games. You played in Windows.
* Macs isn't good for games. You could play the game in Windows but with a PC for a similar amount with a much better graphic card the game would had run much better.
Simple as that. But don't be sad, you're just yet another mac guy who don't understand shit.
I longed for a mac for years after the Amiga seemed dead and Windows 95/98 sucked as soon as OS X was released and I read about it. But I couldn't afford one.
And when I finally could I was so upset about the crappy graphics and displays on the iMacs. Finally I "had" to buy this MBP because I had already paid for ADC student membership and it would be my last chance to get 20% off but I was so fucking upset when they only had 128 MB vram at that release of it as well.
So fucking retarded, and I would have had to pay comparable to 700 dollar more to get 256 MB, which would probably be worth like 60 dollar if anything. But no, this is Apple so they have to force you to get a much more premium/even more ridiculously expensive model to get a decent machine.
I didn't wanted to fall for that trick, so here I am with my 128 MB vram MBP, which indeed SUCK FOR GAMES. And the people behind halflife2 said in an interview that APPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR REQUESTS. THEY HAVE A MEETING EVERY NOW AND THEN WHERE APPLE TALK TO THEM BUT THEN THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ANYWAY BECAUSE APPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT GAMING.
But I always get modded down for telling the truth, mac fanatics suck because they are so fucking busy licking Steves ass that they can't think for themself. However that won't stop me from telling things as they are, I've got karma to burn, and it's not my fault Apple users can't accept anything negative.
Apple needs more competition, as it is now they kind of have the best OS around anyway so they don't need to care, at least that's how they seem to think.
If Vista wouldn't had become such a huge disappointment I guess it would had put some more speed on Apple. Though if there comes a really superior version of Windows (and XP isn't that bad ..) I'm not sure how Apple are supposed to catch up again. Taking another OS as part for their next one won't work so well, because, well, there kind of isn't any other good and complete to take.
And yes, all the 950 GMA bullshit is more or less an insult, acceptable I guess but anything even very low end like a radeon 9200 or such would had been better.
MBP should never had 128 MB vram, 8600m GT with 128 MB vram? Hello? Can someone imagine how a game which the GPU would be capable to run but which would need more ram for textures than 128 MB? I can.
20" low-end iMac shouldn't had 128 MB vram.
iMacs should have one step better gfx or some kind of slot for them yes with options to upgrade.
Just throwing the machine away to upgrade to a new one more capable of playing games gets even more absurd when your machine also contain your 24" display ...
(And there is a lot of retarded mac people which just say how macs isn't for games and how people who want to play games shouldn't buy one... but well, one can't want a mac even if one also play games? They wouldn't play games every now and then if they actually had the possibility? They don't believe more people would buy macs if they could really play games?
I don't see the problem, but obviously there is one.)
Fuck Apple users, and Apple, and moderators on Slashdot.
Obviously since THERE ARE NO GAMES FOR MACS (and no you don't have to answer and mention the games which exists, I already know one can play a very limited amount of games in OS X, but it's nowhere close enough to keep gamers happy, and they run at worse performance, and macs come with shitty graphics, and are overpriced, and Apple don't care about gaming. So ..)
As/if Apple gains market share, the games will come.
Would be nice if Apple understood that if Apple gained games share, the market would come.... How many computer buyers which actually DO buy premium systems don't buy a mac just for this fact that macs suck for gaming? Stupid Apple. But at least they sell well of mediocre mp3 players.
... though it's not EAs or anyone else fault except Apples that Apple don't try to make macs and os x good for games.. Well, maybe all the stupid mac fanboys which yells "omg i'm so fucking pro I don't need games, in fact I hate games, I have penis, macs is not for games, buy a PC if you like games!!"... like it would somehow magically hurt them if macs could run games as well. Mac fanboys are a weird species.
See my response to the grand parent post as well, if 950 GMA is not supported it's even more of a hint that also spore is just a cider emulation of the Windows game and not an actual mac game. Cider don't run games on 950 GMA.
Most EA "mac games" are probably transgaming cider ports, so not actually mac games but more Windows games emulated on a mac.
Because switching between oses suck? And if you don't mind you could just run linux/freebsd and Windows instead of getting a mac in the first place.
I wanted a mac because it would be a different os but still run commercial software. I thought I'd like the OS more though, as it's now I'm not sure I like it better than FreeBSD + KDE.
Yeah, but what is more worrying if a planet can't be made at this distance it must either be the Vogons or the Borgs, and in either case we're fucked.
... or call it "distributors license", show the text and just put an Ok-button there. Nothing to agree to if you are just a user, just show the text and let them click thru it.
So all you need to do it to accept the license and remove the EULA dialogue, recompile the browser and there you go :) :D
No more need to accept!
As have been said before in the case of GPL you are free to not accept the license, but that only makes you give up more rights than you would have had if you had accepted it. So no need to return it, and you can still use it, you more or less just lost the right to modify and distribute your modified product.
"Additional rights information"? =P
Though I guess in a country with no copyright laws it may actually be more restrictive.
Not that weird considering that's how it all was done before ... Even on the Amiga you don't have that much to help you get things done once you don't draw windows in Workbench.
The obvious benefit is of course that you do only what you want/need to do and not a bunch of other stuff.
I doubt we'll see specialized chips (in the same physical chip or not remains to be seen I guess) removed totally though. It's not like someone is saying "oh well let's remove this special purpose stuff which can run a few other instructs really fast and only focus on x86", no matter how it's done we'll probably see much better performance for useful instructions. So I don't know if it makes sense to say that the GPU will go away, get integrated, reimplemented, transformed for more general work, blended with a general purpose processor, transformed, whatever, yes, of course it will. But why getting rid of specialized units which do their job very well?
But I have aspergers you insensitive clod!
(Or well, at least diagnosed, though I doubt it myself. May just be your average nerd which feel uncomfortable with new people. Not sure if aspergers count as much as a "disease" as a personality either though.)
On the other hand he's not wasting his time on something he may not get anything from. Maybe he don't have time for extra work?
It's probably some weird "knowledge" coming from the PC kids have used 640x480 on their TV-out on the graphics card and that worked!
I'd much rather take a high definition small sharp screen than a shitty definition huge piece of shit though ;D, guess we are different.
Size isn't all that important, you just have to come closer, that's what I would tell her, if I had a girlfriend that is. (Knowing I'm going towards the off topic moderation I guess I would pick girlfriend as monitors, rather high def and small than low def and huge :D)
11" is a much bigger factor.
Anyway at washed out at 11" I don't see why anyone would get this, if it's for a toy it must be made much cheaper. You can get an LCD with much better picture obviously for less (if you get 17" ... I don't know where to get 12" or so and they may cost more ;/)
Anyway, the point was that no one can complain that an LCD is inconvenient anyway because how fucking convenient is it to get a 11" single tone and color area and something to put your projector on? Yes that's right! Not very! :D
The eeePC probably outperforms this and can hold it's own movies as well! Not to mention decode them! ;D
From looking at those linked screenshots all I can say is it looks like shit, way to much colors and weird objects in the scene. Those statues from Rapa Nui, ballons in different colors and so on. Wtf?
Sure I guess some of them may be ok in an "urban setting" but it draws away your attention. Way to much information and things to look at in once imho.
Give me starcraft 2 already =P, though I guess it's hard to compare oneself to a title like that :)
I'm well aware it probably don't contain any sort of controller, but still $50 is really expensive, I have no idea what the components may cost but probably not much in the amount of 1000+.
What I wanted to say as well, $50 at this date for something that shitty is expensive as hell, you get a replacement touchscreen LCD for the DS for like 3.5 dollar or something, and that one is 18 bit 256x192. Who cares about text on LCDs of today? You can probably get that Logitech keyboard with display for that price and use that instead ...
I don't see why they would make a complete global network for every "important" on the Internet, pretty retarded if you ask me, or well, unrealistic at least.