AMDs chipsets provide better integrated graphics than Intel do however. And I guess I would go for someone better though still crappy graphics when somewhat faster / more power efficient CPU (if Intel really is.)
Also Intel notebook with Nvidia chipset may compare better to AMD.
Just to make things more clear, desktop Intel-CPU motherboards with NVIDIA's latest GeForce 9300/9400 chipsets (with integrated graphics) are also available.
So if you want to use a Core 2 Duo/Quad and the best NVIDIA integrated graphics (with about half the 3D performance of a $35 discrete graphics card), then that option is also available.
Of course, pretty much every Linux distro also comes in a 32-bit and a 64-bit version, which are distinct. Of course, a 64-bit Windows can happily run 32-bit programs, just like any 64-bit Linux distro. Of course, OS X is simply not a true 64-bit OS yet.
The GP gets modded up for touting the superiority of OS X (which has a 32-bit kernel and uses 32-bit drivers), while criticizing Windows for not "just handling" its 32-bit and 64-bit kernels the way OS X handles its one kernel.
Let's see how Snow Leopard (which will finally have a version with a 64-bit kernel) "handles" it. I'll be impressed if they can pull it off without two separate installers and two sets of drivers (assuming it doesn't drop support for 32-bit Core Duo MacBooks and iMacs).
Back when XP came out, the benefit over Win2K was negligible. And still is really.
But back when WinXP *Home* came out, its benefit over WinME where incredible. For the average user, going for WinXP Home was an incredible improvement over what the user had to endure before.
Many more home users went from Windows 98 to Windows XP (Windows Me had a very short life), but your point is correct. Windows 2000 had a decent modern OS architecture while Win98/Me had an outdated one.
However, many Win98/Me PCs were running just fine with 128MB of RAM. If I remember correctly, trying to run WinXP on 128MB was almost as bad as trying to run Vista on 512MB (which is fine for WinXP).
Avast! has some annoyances (spinning icon, some nagging notifications) but they can be disabled by editing a configuration file.
I think it's worth mentioning the required yearly re-registration (to receive a year-long license key by E-mail) of avast! Home Edition. This is probably not that annoying to the average Slashdot reader, but this might be a problem if you install it on Grandma's computer.
Besides that, I think avast! is a fine product. Avira is also fine, but has the most annoying nag screen. AVG is fine, but has two major (temporary) fuckups in its history (linkscanner and the false positive system file).
I run Linux. By not making a Linux version they are not just shutting out 1% of the market, they are shutting out all of those Windows users that surround me. I don't suggest Chrome because I don't even have the opportunity to use it at home. If I am the 1 in a hundred that use Linux you can add 20 to 30 to me when it comes to what software gets a thumbs up, a thumbs down and an unknown. So really they are leaving out 20 to 30% of the market by not making a Linux version.
I'll believe it when I see it, but did you catch Google's Chrome for Linux and Mac plans? From the link:
Brian Rakowski, Chrome's product manager, said the company wants to release Chrome for Mac and Linux before the first half of 2009 is up.
"That's what we've been hoping for," he said in an interview Friday. "Those two efforts proceeding in parallel. They're at the same level of progress."
The Mac and Linux versions are up to the level of a basic "test shell" that can show Web pages. But a test shell is pretty raw.
"The battery in the new 17-inch MacBook Pro lasts up to 8 hours on a single charge [1] and can be recharged up to 1000 [2]"
The bottom of the page explains the second footnote:
"2. Apple does not warrant the battery beyond Apple's one-year Limited Warranty. The battery has a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by an Apple Service Provider. Battery life and charge cycles vary by use and settings. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information."
Win2k is a decade old. Stable or not, you can't expect companies to go on supporting it forever.
Why not? If there are enough users (especially large businesses) and people paying for support (i.e. licensed or bespoke software) then why cut off customers?
The latest Net Applications numbers show Windows 2000 has about 1.47% market share. Maybe this isn't enough users.
Of course, I expect a larger-than-1.47% share among business users. Home-oriented software/services (e.g. Photoshop/Premiere Elements, Netflix Watch Instantly, Foobar2000) are abandoning Windows 2000 users more quickly than business-oriented software, but many big names in business software have also started the Win2K abandonment (e.g. QuickBooks Pro, Photoshop CS4).
This bugs me a bit since most Windows XP (NT 5.1) software should work fine in Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) with few, if any, modifications. However, Windows 2000 was never really meant for home users and 10 years of support from Microsoft is a pretty good run for an OS. I salute those Windows 2000 users who will skip both XP and Vista when Win2K's extended support ends in mid-2010 (Windows 7 will be out by then).
I'd add VirtualBox (virtualization software for Windows, OS X, Linux, and Solaris/OpenSolaris) as another Sun free and open source product that's more deserving than at least a few of the products mentioned in TFA. Version 2.1 now has OpenGL support, hardware support for Intel VT-x and AMD-V, 64-bit guests in 32-bit hosts, and other features/fixes.
Maybe TFAuthor has difficulty thinking anything from Sun can be "open source."
I agree. I wear clothes 14 to 18 hours a day, and my underwear is my penis protector a lot of that time. It arguably makes more sense for me to choose wisely and spend $80 to $100 on a pair of underwear than on a cell phone, which I probably use about 30 minutes a day.
I wish I had the new 65nm cell chip - the fan in my PS3 is louder than anything else in the house, we have to crank up the volume to hear movie dialogue over it.
Now, assuming that I did plump out another $400 just to get a quieter box
Without knowing the specifics of your situation, would plumping out $270 (free shipping) for a Sony BDP-S350 be a better option? I know the PS3 used to be the "best Blu-ray player" (because it could be updated), but I think current Blu-ray players no longer have the deficiencies of first-gen players.
Of course, I don't know if you have another available HDMI port or if the fan bothers you during games.
This isn't even a "bug" in as much as they decided they would ignore the issue on the Mac platform in hopes that they could just point at the (*still* unfinished) Mac product and say "there's your patch buddy, $60 please".
I'm assuming you're referring to the "still unfinished" successor to Quicken 2007 as a "patch." To be fair to Intuit, the next version is a a rewrite "from the ground up" in Cocoa, so it's hardly a patch.
The OS X product sucks that bad.
That's for sure (the 2007 version). Also, a Cocoa rewrite doesn't guarantee the next version won't suck.
I remember the BH6 fondly too, especially teamed with a Celeron 300A CPUs
You didn't mention the best part: an entry-level Celeron 300A (300MHz, 66MHz FSB, 128K on-die L2 cache) could be overclocked to 450MHz (100MHz FSB) while keeping the rest of the components (e.g. PC100 memory, AGP bus) at non-overclocked speeds. For the price of an entry-level Celeron, an Abit BH6 user could have nearly the performance of the most expensive Pentium II of 1998 (450MHz, 100MHz FSB, 512K off-die L2 cache).
My anecdote: BH6 motherboard bought in 1998 (when a 400MHz Pentium II cost more than $500) and initially teamed with a $70 Celeron 266 (no L2 cache). Considered (but didn't buy) a Celeron 300A (to overclock to 450MHz) and, later, a Celeron 566MHz (to overclock to 850MHz). I eventually upgraded that $70 Celeron 266 to a $70 Celeron 900 (Pentium III based with SSE) and Socket 370 to Slot 1 converter.
I haven't checked in years, but I bet I can still find new BH6-related posts in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit.
Argh. I've got nothing against Delta (don't know much about them), but I think the "EarthWatts" model name earned its good reputation by using Seasonic. It's like when LCD models change panel suppliers (and sometimes panel technology), but keep the same model name.
For decent value-priced PSUs, I guess I'll just go with OEM models from Seasonic and FSP Group, which are made by... Seasonic and FSP Group.
but the low low end is already ruled by SSDs (4GB, 8GB, etc as only options for netbooks). As time goes on SSD will move up from there, out-competing larger and larger capacity HDD until "boom" - they are produced more cheaply per GB regardless of total capacity.
I think that "boom" mark is sometime in 2010, but certainly the GP's point about laptops stands. Unless you are the rare person who needs a large capacity laptop drive, there is no reason not to have an SSD in your laptop now.
Those cheap 4GB and 8GB "SSDs" in netbooks are not like the expensive, high-performance SSDs that start at 32GB. Those cheap netbook SSDs have poor to no wear-leveling and very poor write performance. If performance is more important than shock-resistance, then most netbook owners are better off opting for a 5400rmp hard drive (since "real" SSDs aren't offered on netbooks yet).
Customers must also order phone service to get the budget-priced DSL service; those looking for cheap, naked DSL should look elsewhere.
The first of the two linked articles describes AT&T's "naked" DSL offering. I'm not sure why the GP included that second article (which you quoted). Maybe because it's another deal that AT&T makes "hard to find," but it seems unrelated to the topic.
if you're using something other than VLC or mplayer, regardless of your OS, you're an idiot.
I'm sorry, but Media Player Classic is a valid choice.
mplayer is Media Player Classic.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the GP was referring to the cross-platform MPlayer, which is definitely not the Windows-only Media Player Classic (a.k.a. MPC). This is probably a common mix-up.
"Windows Media Player" is wmplayer.
Yes, the name of its executable file (e.g. in Task Manager) is wmplayer, but its common abbreviated name is WMP. Media Player Classic's (MPC's) executable file is named mplayerc, not mplayer. MPlayer's executable is named mplayer.
Again, this is understandably confusing. BTW, I think Media Player Classic (plus your favorite codec pack) is the best video player on any platform. A "video player" should not try to be a music player or photo viewer, in my worthless opinion.
"First, the battery cover is now removed with a latch instead of the old rotational lock that required a coin to turn. Secondly, the Kensington lock port, when activated, will also lock this latch and keep anyone from stealing your battery, and more importantly your removable hard drive."
I'm surprised anyone would complain about an easy-to-replace hard drive on a Mac. Some current and previous model Macs make it a pain in the arse to replace the hard drive.
But new macbook vs old one? Definitly. Way better than plastic.
Way better than the white plastic MacBook, which looks like a tacky toy IMO. OTOH, I think the black plastic looks pretty good.
I must be the only one who thinks Apple's white plastic products (iBook, iPod, iMac, MacBook) look lame. I like Apple's current move away from white plastic and toward uncolored (MacBook, iMac) and colored (iPod nano) aluminum.
I have a hard time believing Apple would intentionally install shitty kernel mode drivers, but Apple has fucked up and blamed Microsoft in the past: "iPods Come Complete With Windows Virus"
"The Cupertino, Calif.-based company apologized on its Web site for the problem, but also used the opportunity to jab at Microsoft, its operating system rival.
"As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it," Apple said on its site. "
Sure, Apple was scolded by non-Microsoft security experts, but I'm sure Apple fanboys ate the bullshit all up.
Two step process for me. Mac The Ripper to decrypt/rip the entire DVD (menus and all) to a VIDEO_TS folder on my hard drive.
Who on earth would pay for REALcrap?
Maybe those that think that, unlike Mac the Ripper, REALcrap is "legal" software from a legitimate company? TFA even mentions Mac the Ripper and calls it "illegal":
"Since then, anyone who wanted to make a backup copy of his "Star Wars" or "Lost" DVDs had to turn to free but illegal programs on the Web, with names like Handbrake and Mac the Ripper. These programs are hard to legally stop because they have many creators who are typically overseas and have few resources. They are used mostly by sophisticated Internet aficionados who may just as easily download movies directly from illicit file-sharing services."
Of course, most Slashdot readers have banned RealNetworks from their computers because of their past asshole-ish behavior. They're also "sophisticated" enough to use the free alternatives. However, some less sophisticated computer users may be scared by recent news headlines of home users being sued by content creators. Software from RealNetworks makes them feel safe from litigation.
I want my next computer to have no disk drives and no fans, because my last computer like that is still working 25+ years later.
If the Atom platform is good enough (it currently performs like a 1.2GHz Pentium M), then we're almost there. Dell's new Inspiron Mini netbook is fanless, although Dell designed a large heatsink to cool the mobile 945GM graphics. The upcoming Poulsbo chipset, which is designed for Atom, should make it easier to go fanless (and adds full HD video acceleration).
The Atom CPU doesn't need a fan and dual-core versions are supposedly coming this month. Unfortunately, Poulsbo won't be ready.
As I understand it, Microsoft has deliberately restricted the systems that can be licensed with OEM WinXP by mandating that devices having screens smaller than something like 10" or 11", and no more than 1GB of RAM, a HDD no larger than 80GB, and a processor slower than 1.8GHz. (Someone feel free to correct me on the exact WinXP OEM Netbook licensing hardware restrictions, but I have read about there somewhere recently...)
I bought an Acer Aspire One netbook for my wife. It shipped with Windows XP Home and has many of the limits you mention: 1.6GHz Atom processor, 8.9-inch screen, and 1 GB of RAM. The hard drive, however, is 120 GB. I had read about the 80 GB limitation before, but either Acer got around it, or Microsoft has raised its ceiling.
Yup, Microsoft did "raise its celing". The new "limits" include 160GB hard drive and 14.1" screen (which seems large for a "netbook").
Slashdot Mirror
AMDs chipsets provide better integrated graphics than Intel do however. And I guess I would go for someone better though still crappy graphics when somewhat faster / more power efficient CPU (if Intel really is.)
Also Intel notebook with Nvidia chipset may compare better to AMD.
Just to make things more clear, desktop Intel-CPU motherboards with NVIDIA's latest GeForce 9300/9400 chipsets (with integrated graphics) are also available.
So if you want to use a Core 2 Duo/Quad and the best NVIDIA integrated graphics (with about half the 3D performance of a $35 discrete graphics card), then that option is also available.
Of course, pretty much every Linux distro also comes in a 32-bit and a 64-bit version, which are distinct. Of course, a 64-bit Windows can happily run 32-bit programs, just like any 64-bit Linux distro. Of course, OS X is simply not a true 64-bit OS yet.
The GP gets modded up for touting the superiority of OS X (which has a 32-bit kernel and uses 32-bit drivers), while criticizing Windows for not "just handling" its 32-bit and 64-bit kernels the way OS X handles its one kernel.
Let's see how Snow Leopard (which will finally have a version with a 64-bit kernel) "handles" it. I'll be impressed if they can pull it off without two separate installers and two sets of drivers (assuming it doesn't drop support for 32-bit Core Duo MacBooks and iMacs).
Back when XP came out, the benefit over Win2K was negligible. And still is really.
But back when WinXP *Home* came out, its benefit over WinME where incredible. For the average user, going for WinXP Home was an incredible improvement over what the user had to endure before.
Many more home users went from Windows 98 to Windows XP (Windows Me had a very short life), but your point is correct. Windows 2000 had a decent modern OS architecture while Win98/Me had an outdated one.
However, many Win98/Me PCs were running just fine with 128MB of RAM. If I remember correctly, trying to run WinXP on 128MB was almost as bad as trying to run Vista on 512MB (which is fine for WinXP).
Avast! has some annoyances (spinning icon, some nagging notifications) but they can be disabled by editing a configuration file.
I think it's worth mentioning the required yearly re-registration (to receive a year-long license key by E-mail) of avast! Home Edition. This is probably not that annoying to the average Slashdot reader, but this might be a problem if you install it on Grandma's computer.
Besides that, I think avast! is a fine product. Avira is also fine, but has the most annoying nag screen. AVG is fine, but has two major (temporary) fuckups in its history (linkscanner and the false positive system file).
"Brian Rakowski, Chrome's product manager, said the company wants to release Chrome for Mac and Linux before the first half of 2009 is up."
I run Linux. By not making a Linux version they are not just shutting out 1% of the market, they are shutting out all of those Windows users that surround me. I don't suggest Chrome because I don't even have the opportunity to use it at home. If I am the 1 in a hundred that use Linux you can add 20 to 30 to me when it comes to what software gets a thumbs up, a thumbs down and an unknown. So really they are leaving out 20 to 30% of the market by not making a Linux version.
I'll believe it when I see it, but did you catch Google's Chrome for Linux and Mac plans? From the link:
"That's what we've been hoping for," he said in an interview Friday. "Those two efforts proceeding in parallel. They're at the same level of progress."
The Mac and Linux versions are up to the level of a basic "test shell" that can show Web pages. But a test shell is pretty raw.
Additionally Apple care will cover the battery for 3 years-- that's not something you get on most warantee contracts.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this point. It looks like the battery gets just 1 year, even if you buy Apple Care.
From Apple's "features" page:
The bottom of the page explains the second footnote:
Win2k is a decade old. Stable or not, you can't expect companies to go on supporting it forever.
Why not? If there are enough users (especially large businesses) and people paying for support (i.e. licensed or bespoke software) then why cut off customers?
The latest Net Applications numbers show Windows 2000 has about 1.47% market share. Maybe this isn't enough users.
Of course, I expect a larger-than-1.47% share among business users. Home-oriented software/services (e.g. Photoshop/Premiere Elements, Netflix Watch Instantly, Foobar2000) are abandoning Windows 2000 users more quickly than business-oriented software, but many big names in business software have also started the Win2K abandonment (e.g. QuickBooks Pro, Photoshop CS4).
This bugs me a bit since most Windows XP (NT 5.1) software should work fine in Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) with few, if any, modifications. However, Windows 2000 was never really meant for home users and 10 years of support from Microsoft is a pretty good run for an OS. I salute those Windows 2000 users who will skip both XP and Vista when Win2K's extended support ends in mid-2010 (Windows 7 will be out by then).
How about OpenSolaris for Christ's sake?
I'd add VirtualBox (virtualization software for Windows, OS X, Linux, and Solaris/OpenSolaris) as another Sun free and open source product that's more deserving than at least a few of the products mentioned in TFA. Version 2.1 now has OpenGL support, hardware support for Intel VT-x and AMD-V, 64-bit guests in 32-bit hosts, and other features/fixes.
Maybe TFAuthor has difficulty thinking anything from Sun can be "open source."
I agree. I wear clothes 14 to 18 hours a day, and my underwear is my penis protector a lot of that time. It arguably makes more sense for me to choose wisely and spend $80 to $100 on a pair of underwear than on a cell phone, which I probably use about 30 minutes a day.
I wish I had the new 65nm cell chip - the fan in my PS3 is louder than anything else in the house, we have to crank up the volume to hear movie dialogue over it.
Now, assuming that I did plump out another $400 just to get a quieter box
Without knowing the specifics of your situation, would plumping out $270 (free shipping) for a Sony BDP-S350 be a better option? I know the PS3 used to be the "best Blu-ray player" (because it could be updated), but I think current Blu-ray players no longer have the deficiencies of first-gen players.
Of course, I don't know if you have another available HDMI port or if the fan bothers you during games.
This isn't even a "bug" in as much as they decided they would ignore the issue on the Mac platform in hopes that they could just point at the (*still* unfinished) Mac product and say "there's your patch buddy, $60 please".
I'm assuming you're referring to the "still unfinished" successor to Quicken 2007 as a "patch." To be fair to Intuit, the next version is a a rewrite "from the ground up" in Cocoa, so it's hardly a patch.
The OS X product sucks that bad.
That's for sure (the 2007 version). Also, a Cocoa rewrite doesn't guarantee the next version won't suck.
I wonder if they will let you buy the windows 7 upgrade for xp though?
From what I've seen over the years, Microsoft generally allows "upgrade" versions to work on at least the two previous versions. Upgrade versions of Vista work on Windows XP and Windows 2000. Upgrade versions of XP work on Windows 2000, NT 4, ME, and 98. Upgrade versions of Office 2007 work on Office 2000, XP, and 2003.
I remember the BH6 fondly too, especially teamed with a Celeron 300A CPUs
You didn't mention the best part: an entry-level Celeron 300A (300MHz, 66MHz FSB, 128K on-die L2 cache) could be overclocked to 450MHz (100MHz FSB) while keeping the rest of the components (e.g. PC100 memory, AGP bus) at non-overclocked speeds. For the price of an entry-level Celeron, an Abit BH6 user could have nearly the performance of the most expensive Pentium II of 1998 (450MHz, 100MHz FSB, 512K off-die L2 cache).
My anecdote: BH6 motherboard bought in 1998 (when a 400MHz Pentium II cost more than $500) and initially teamed with a $70 Celeron 266 (no L2 cache). Considered (but didn't buy) a Celeron 300A (to overclock to 450MHz) and, later, a Celeron 566MHz (to overclock to 850MHz). I eventually upgraded that $70 Celeron 266 to a $70 Celeron 900 (Pentium III based with SSE) and Socket 370 to Slot 1 converter.
I haven't checked in years, but I bet I can still find new BH6-related posts in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit.
Except, of course, for the Antec EarthWatts. And the TruePower series. Both of which are... made by Seasonic.
Not entirely true.
The older EarthWatts were made by Seasonic, the newer ones are made by Delta.
Source: http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story&reid=110
Argh. I've got nothing against Delta (don't know much about them), but I think the "EarthWatts" model name earned its good reputation by using Seasonic. It's like when LCD models change panel suppliers (and sometimes panel technology), but keep the same model name.
For decent value-priced PSUs, I guess I'll just go with OEM models from Seasonic and FSP Group, which are made by... Seasonic and FSP Group.
but the low low end is already ruled by SSDs (4GB, 8GB, etc as only options for netbooks). As time goes on SSD will move up from there, out-competing larger and larger capacity HDD until "boom" - they are produced more cheaply per GB regardless of total capacity.
I think that "boom" mark is sometime in 2010, but certainly the GP's point about laptops stands. Unless you are the rare person who needs a large capacity laptop drive, there is no reason not to have an SSD in your laptop now.
Those cheap 4GB and 8GB "SSDs" in netbooks are not like the expensive, high-performance SSDs that start at 32GB. Those cheap netbook SSDs have poor to no wear-leveling and very poor write performance. If performance is more important than shock-resistance, then most netbook owners are better off opting for a 5400rmp hard drive (since "real" SSDs aren't offered on netbooks yet).
AT&T offers the same for DSL, though they don't really advertise it:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071231-att-offers-20-naked-dsl-if-you-know-where-to-look.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070618-att-launches-10-dsl-it-hopes-no-one-signs-up-for.html
From the linked article:
Customers must also order phone service to get the budget-priced DSL service; those looking for cheap, naked DSL should look elsewhere.
The first of the two linked articles describes AT&T's "naked" DSL offering. I'm not sure why the GP included that second article (which you quoted). Maybe because it's another deal that AT&T makes "hard to find," but it seems unrelated to the topic.
if you're using something other than VLC or mplayer, regardless of your OS, you're an idiot.
I'm sorry, but Media Player Classic is a valid choice.
mplayer is Media Player Classic.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the GP was referring to the cross-platform MPlayer, which is definitely not the Windows-only Media Player Classic (a.k.a. MPC). This is probably a common mix-up.
"Windows Media Player" is wmplayer.
Yes, the name of its executable file (e.g. in Task Manager) is wmplayer, but its common abbreviated name is WMP. Media Player Classic's (MPC's) executable file is named mplayerc, not mplayer. MPlayer's executable is named mplayer.
Again, this is understandably confusing. BTW, I think Media Player Classic (plus your favorite codec pack) is the best video player on any platform. A "video player" should not try to be a music player or photo viewer, in my worthless opinion.
The latch is locked when the kensington cable is in. I don't remember where I read this, but I'm 100% positive.
Just to make other readers 100% HIV positive, here's one place I read this: "Hands on with the Macbook/Pro's removable hard drive".
From TA:
I'm surprised anyone would complain about an easy-to-replace hard drive on a Mac. Some current and previous model Macs make it a pain in the arse to replace the hard drive.
But new macbook vs old one? Definitly. Way better than plastic.
Way better than the white plastic MacBook, which looks like a tacky toy IMO. OTOH, I think the black plastic looks pretty good.
I must be the only one who thinks Apple's white plastic products (iBook, iPod, iMac, MacBook) look lame. I like Apple's current move away from white plastic and toward uncolored (MacBook, iMac) and colored (iPod nano) aluminum.
[Leela and Fry run into a cinema showing: It Came From Planet Earth]
Fry: Wow the 3-D's great!
Leela: Mine's not working!
[She moves the 3D glasses back and forth over her eye.]
From TA:
"As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it," Apple said on its site. "
Sure, Apple was scolded by non-Microsoft security experts, but I'm sure Apple fanboys ate the bullshit all up.
TOTALLY worthless
Two step process for me. Mac The Ripper to decrypt/rip the entire DVD (menus and all) to a VIDEO_TS folder on my hard drive.
Who on earth would pay for REALcrap?
Maybe those that think that, unlike Mac the Ripper, REALcrap is "legal" software from a legitimate company? TFA even mentions Mac the Ripper and calls it "illegal":
Of course, most Slashdot readers have banned RealNetworks from their computers because of their past asshole-ish behavior. They're also "sophisticated" enough to use the free alternatives. However, some less sophisticated computer users may be scared by recent news headlines of home users being sued by content creators. Software from RealNetworks makes them feel safe from litigation.
My Atari-400 still works 25 years later
I want my next computer to have no disk drives and no fans, because my last computer like that is still working 25+ years later.
If the Atom platform is good enough (it currently performs like a 1.2GHz Pentium M), then we're almost there. Dell's new Inspiron Mini netbook is fanless, although Dell designed a large heatsink to cool the mobile 945GM graphics. The upcoming Poulsbo chipset, which is designed for Atom, should make it easier to go fanless (and adds full HD video acceleration).
The Atom CPU doesn't need a fan and dual-core versions are supposedly coming this month. Unfortunately, Poulsbo won't be ready.
As I understand it, Microsoft has deliberately restricted the systems that can be licensed with OEM WinXP by mandating that devices having screens smaller than something like 10" or 11", and no more than 1GB of RAM, a HDD no larger than 80GB, and a processor slower than 1.8GHz. (Someone feel free to correct me on the exact WinXP OEM Netbook licensing hardware restrictions, but I have read about there somewhere recently...)
I bought an Acer Aspire One netbook for my wife. It shipped with Windows XP Home and has many of the limits you mention: 1.6GHz Atom processor, 8.9-inch screen, and 1 GB of RAM. The hard drive, however, is 120 GB. I had read about the 80 GB limitation before, but either Acer got around it, or Microsoft has raised its ceiling.
Yup, Microsoft did "raise its celing". The new "limits" include 160GB hard drive and 14.1" screen (which seems large for a "netbook").