A nice beige case just doesn't blend in with the rest of my system very well. I'd rather buy a "network audio appliance" from Sony or Pioneer or something though. Heh, Sony should make a slick looking, hackable Linux box with SPDIF and TOSLINK outputs and a big VFD on the front. And maybe hardware DVD decoding and an S-Video output too. Oh well, enough dreaming. You'd probably get a lot of wierd looks, but it'd be really cool to hack a SB Live into a Cobalt RaQ 3i. Anyone have any suggestions on doing that? Hmm. Or maybe I'll cut up a Sony receiver or DVD player or something and stick an Advantech single board computer in there. Or maybe I'll get back to work before my boss notices me daydreaming.:)
Interestingly, the sale of APS (The new still film in the smaller cartrage, with the small data store for picture information) cameras vastly outstrips the sale of digital ones. Analogue has won here, despite the enormous digital camera hype (remember that?) so there's no reason why it shouldn't do so for motion film too.
Uh, seems to me that you're making the same mistake Ebert has made. APS is about as far as consumer analog photography is going to go, but digital has just begun. The infinite flexibility of digital is avoided at this point because of real, but short term, problems like resolution and the cost of media. In any digital versus analog comparison, it only takes time and research to improve digital to the point of surpassing analog or at least being indistinguishable by the general public. For example, CDs are in some ways arguably lower quality than vinyl, but most people can't tell and appreciate the benefits of digital. Any media where analog and digital compete will eventually go digital (at least mostly.. some purists may stick to vinyl or film or whatever) for that reason.
1280x1024 is about 10mm dot pitch over what area? I mean, if you project 1280x1024 over a screen the size of North America, that's about a TWO MILE dot pitch. I understand that I'm abusing the concept of 'dot pitch' a bit to make my example, but saying that a resolution necessarily equals a dot pitch is just incorrect.
He's obviously talking about over the area of a theatre screen. Seems to be about the right order of magnitude, and it's a good point. Of course, that's for what essentially amounts to a proof of concept system from TI. Quite nearsighted of Ebert to judge the future of an technology based on one of the very first (real world) implementations of that technology.
Like IE4.0, IE5.0 is quite buggy. Granted, it's less buggy than NS4.5, and faster than NS4.5, but I still think aheitner is right when he said "they're on an unstable beta of ver5". When I'm forced to use Windows, I'll stick to IE 4.01, at least until a less-beta version of IE5 (i.e. 5.01 or 5.0 SP1 or whatever) comes out.
I checked out this guy's claims, and they're true! I put each of the following OSes onto the 16 DEC alphas I have in my living room, and did some web performance testing by refreshing a page in my browser. Here's what I found:
Windows NT running IIS 4: 15 pages per minute (until it crashed) Windows 95 running PWS: 20 pages per minute RedHat Linux/Sparc running fdisk: 0 pages per minute AIX running SSH: 0 pages per minute MacOS X Server running MacAmp: 0 pages per minute (and they said it would be good!) PalmOS 3 running Memo Pad: 0 pages per minute
So as you can quite obviously see, Windows NT is a far superior operating system! </joke>
--
Precompiled headers is not just post-preprocessed
on
Linux on CNN Tonight
·
· Score: 1
While I have used M$VC++ (yech) of various generations (only because my boss made me, I swear!:), I haven't played much with it's precompiled header stuff. But back in the days of good old Borland C++, I did notice that #defines and such before the #includes did not force a rebuild of the precompiled headers, unless the conditions, definitions, etc changed since the last build. It appeared that it was keeping track of the list of includes, and also all current state of things leading into the includes. Anyway, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to propogate changes like to mentioned, but just recognize that the "pre-#include symbol dump" doesn't match. I don't know if that made much sense...
Slashdot Mirror
A nice beige case just doesn't blend in with the rest of my system very well. I'd rather buy a "network audio appliance" from Sony or Pioneer or something though. Heh, Sony should make a slick looking, hackable Linux box with SPDIF and TOSLINK outputs and a big VFD on the front. And maybe hardware DVD decoding and an S-Video output too. Oh well, enough dreaming. You'd probably get a lot of wierd looks, but it'd be really cool to hack a SB Live into a Cobalt RaQ 3i. Anyone have any suggestions on doing that? Hmm. Or maybe I'll cut up a Sony receiver or DVD player or something and stick an Advantech single board computer in there. Or maybe I'll get back to work before my boss notices me daydreaming. :)
Interestingly, the sale of APS (The new still film in the smaller cartrage, with the small data store for picture information) cameras vastly outstrips the sale of digital ones. Analogue has won here, despite the enormous digital camera hype (remember that?) so there's no reason why it shouldn't do so for motion film too.
Uh, seems to me that you're making the same mistake Ebert has made. APS is about as far as consumer analog photography is going to go, but digital has just begun. The infinite flexibility of digital is avoided at this point because of real, but short term, problems like resolution and the cost of media. In any digital versus analog comparison, it only takes time and research to improve digital to the point of surpassing analog or at least being indistinguishable by the general public. For example, CDs are in some ways arguably lower quality than vinyl, but most people can't tell and appreciate the benefits of digital. Any media where analog and digital compete will eventually go digital (at least mostly.. some purists may stick to vinyl or film or whatever) for that reason.
--
1280x1024 is about 10mm dot pitch over what area? I mean, if you project 1280x1024 over a screen the size of North America, that's about a TWO MILE dot pitch.
I understand that I'm abusing the concept of 'dot pitch' a bit to make my example, but saying that a resolution necessarily equals a dot pitch is just incorrect.
He's obviously talking about over the area of a theatre screen. Seems to be about the right order of magnitude, and it's a good point. Of course, that's for what essentially amounts to a proof of concept system from TI. Quite nearsighted of Ebert to judge the future of an technology based on one of the very first (real world) implementations of that technology.
--
Like IE4.0, IE5.0 is quite buggy. Granted, it's less buggy than NS4.5, and faster than NS4.5, but I still think aheitner is right when he said "they're on an unstable beta of ver5". When I'm forced to use Windows, I'll stick to IE 4.01, at least until a less-beta version of IE5 (i.e. 5.01 or 5.0 SP1 or whatever) comes out.
I checked out this guy's claims, and they're true! I put each of the following OSes onto the 16 DEC alphas I have in my living room, and did some web performance testing by refreshing a page in my browser. Here's what I found:
Windows NT running IIS 4: 15 pages per minute (until it crashed)
Windows 95 running PWS: 20 pages per minute
RedHat Linux/Sparc running fdisk: 0 pages per minute
AIX running SSH: 0 pages per minute
MacOS X Server running MacAmp: 0 pages per minute (and they said it would be good!)
PalmOS 3 running Memo Pad: 0 pages per minute
So as you can quite obviously see, Windows NT is a far superior operating system!
</joke>
--
While I have used M$VC++ (yech) of various generations (only because my boss made me, I swear! :), I haven't played much with it's precompiled header stuff. But back in the days of good old Borland C++, I did notice that #defines and such before the #includes did not force a rebuild of the precompiled headers, unless the conditions, definitions, etc changed since the last build. It appeared that it was keeping track of the list of includes, and also all current state of things leading into the includes. Anyway, perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to propogate changes like to mentioned, but just recognize that the "pre-#include symbol dump" doesn't match. I don't know if that made much sense...
Ben Shakal
argo AT sixg.com
--