Actually, I'd suggest iWork, Safari and Mail for OSX. Flash performance is so much worse on OSX (compared to the windows version), a windows emulator running the Flash plugin would probably be equal in performance. I had a Dual 2.3GHz G5 that I replaced with a 2.2GHz core2duo MacBook for a moment and there was a definite downgrade in over-all performance. However, my Mac Pro beats the G5 hands down in performance, but it seems to consume even more electricity and produces more heat, which is a benefit here in the long, cold winter of Finland.
Flash is unbelievably slow for video streaming, ummkay. Combine that with some extreme bloatware like Thunderbird, Firefox and NeoOffice and yes, you'll need a 8-core Xeon to brute-force the issue.
Well, it depends on the model and how much you load it and how many cards you have installed.
If it's a Single-1.8GHz 2004 model, it'll use 120W idle, 160W max and 552W fully-loaded max. If it's a Dual-2.5GHz 2004 model, it'll use 120W idle, 406W max and 604W fully-loaded max. If it's a Dual-2.3GHz 2005 model, it'll use 165W idle, 450W max. If it's a Quad-2.5GHz 2005 model, it'll use 185W idle, 550W max.
The PSU itself is rated 600W and the fully-loaded means the most power-hungry pci-cards imaginable installed in all slots.
The performance per watt is comparable to other performance-oriented machines of the era; Athlon64's / Opterons and Intel P4's / Xeons.
A PowerMac G5 could be perfectly fine as a desktop machine running OSX 10.4, 10.5 or a linux distro. The power consumption isn't such a big issue, if the machine is put into sleep mode or shut down when not used.
No, just a little over 200dpi and most GPU's still struggle with the resolution. (I still use one of these every day) I have to use two DVI cables for the display to get any kind of acceptable signal, but it's well worth it.
Anyway, 200dpi is good enough, even with perfect vision one won't be sitting as close to the display to really notice there are any pixels. I just wish someone would still manufacture and sell these, IBM quit the PC and display business in 2005.
The display response time isn't worse than other displays from the era. The refresh rate isn't actually too bad, a regular graphics card drives it at 33.8Hz nowadays and I'd guess the largest limiting factor at the time was the driving electronics (dual-link dvi wasn't invented yet etc). Sony probably also profits from the technology they bought from IBM by making 200dpi cell phone displays better than larger displays. After all, most people aren't demanding anything better than "HDTV", because most don't know anything better ever existed.
The very first post in this thread links to one. That's what started the discussion.
These aren't really available anywhere. There are just every now and then someone who sells a single display on ebay and they still sell for thousands a piece.
It's a backwards compatible HyperCard clone using just standard browser features (no flash or other plugins). Works fine on most mobile devices too, including iPhones and iPads.
An actual high res monitor would be better than any of these supposedly "HD" screens kludged together using expensive GPU's.
I do have a 22.2" 3840x2400 IPS display (ViewSonic VP2290b), it's from 2003. It's driven by two DVI ports of a regular GeForce 8800GT in my Mac Pro. Additionally, I have two low-res (1920x1200) 24" screens connected to another GPU for video and games.
IBM sold their monitor factory to Sony around the same time they sold their ThinkPad business to Lenovo in 2005.
Since then, the meaning of "HD" has been just 1920x1080, just 22.5% of the resolution these 3840x2400 displays have.
Palm's Graffiti was cross-platform, available on several PDA platforms. It was pretty popular on the Newton, because the speed and reliability of Newton's standard handwriting recognizion sucked. Graffiti was such a successful product that Palm later had the resources to build Palm Pilots as "K.I.S.S." PDA's.
Excel and Word as you know them today are actually originating from Microsoft's Mac versions of said apps. 1980's and early 1990's stuff. Meanwhile, the MS-DOS MS Word and MS-DOS MS Multiplan (spreadsheet) were something entirely different.
Then came Windows 3.0 and Word For Windows: essentially a dumbed down version of the Mac Word. Then they ported the Mac Excel, added PowerPoint and started calling the combination Microsoft Office (6.0) and released it simultaneously for Mac and Windows.
However, it was an order of magnitude slower and buggier, while not really providing anything new over the previous Mac versions, so it wasn't exactly a sales success on the Mac. Since then, they have released about as many Mac versions as Windows versions(they omitted the '95 version of 6.0).
Still.. typical Microsoft quality, so Apple created iWork to replace it. Earlier, Safari was created to replace the Mac version of Internet Explorer. Unlike Mac IE, Microsoft actually still makes money from the Mac MS Office, so they continue to develop it.
Re:As the "computer guy" for a large circle of peo
on
Apple iPad Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
Meanwhile, I'm going to go back to my Amiga, which is the number one selling computer.
In which parallel universe? Even classic macs sold better than amigas.
Supporting flash in its current iteration would have added over $120 to the iPad's hardware cost, and dropped the battery life to under 3 hours. Seriously, you'd vote for that?
Of course, because that would make the mac fags less cocky about the performance of their new toy. Also, what else could we complain about then, lack of linux support?
The average "soccer mom"/"joe sixpack" are pretty good at leeching torrents nowadays and most of them learn that stuff labeled with "h264" are better than stuff labeled with "xvid". Ogg Theora, nobody knows about that, except a few nerds.
One of the reasons they were bad, was that there was no well-defined API in the browser for video plugins. With the DOM of HTML5, there is one now. When the IMG tag was introduced, the initial support was for XPM and such now long ago obsolete image / icon formats. Whichever codecs we choose to support in our browsers now will likely be obsolete in a few years anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, everyone knows DIP switches were replaced by the much cheaper jumper blocks in PC hardware in early 90's.
Meh, ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ are just something between €€€€ and €€€€€
Behold; I have 5-digit Slashdot ID, but I'm not willing to trade for something cheap like that.
However, I might be interested in $$$$$$ or €€€€€€.
People do pretty fancy things on capacitive touch screens too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8TBY7z79L8&feature=related
Then it would look like:
santeuhsaeouhtsuae auoetnseuoath uaeotnsueo tnsneuaht suanaeu suh saeuohtn saue htseuoatn uaensuehao sueathn euoan sa euons
Where is the benefit?
The benefit is: no ads. Probably saves some time in the effort of searching for and loading the "free" content too.
Actually, I'd suggest iWork, Safari and Mail for OSX.
Flash performance is so much worse on OSX (compared to the windows version), a windows emulator running the Flash plugin would probably be equal in performance.
I had a Dual 2.3GHz G5 that I replaced with a 2.2GHz core2duo MacBook for a moment and there was a definite downgrade in over-all performance. However, my Mac Pro beats the G5 hands down in performance, but it seems to consume even more electricity and produces more heat, which is a benefit here in the long, cold winter of Finland.
Flash is unbelievably slow for video streaming, ummkay. Combine that with some extreme bloatware like Thunderbird, Firefox and NeoOffice and yes, you'll need a 8-core Xeon to brute-force the issue.
Well, it depends on the model and how much you load it and how many cards you have installed.
If it's a Single-1.8GHz 2004 model, it'll use 120W idle, 160W max and 552W fully-loaded max.
If it's a Dual-2.5GHz 2004 model, it'll use 120W idle, 406W max and 604W fully-loaded max.
If it's a Dual-2.3GHz 2005 model, it'll use 165W idle, 450W max.
If it's a Quad-2.5GHz 2005 model, it'll use 185W idle, 550W max.
The PSU itself is rated 600W and the fully-loaded means the most power-hungry pci-cards imaginable installed in all slots.
The performance per watt is comparable to other performance-oriented machines of the era; Athlon64's / Opterons and Intel P4's / Xeons.
Here are some benchmark scores to compare with other macs: http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
A PowerMac G5 could be perfectly fine as a desktop machine running OSX 10.4, 10.5 or a linux distro. The power consumption isn't such a big issue, if the machine is put into sleep mode or shut down when not used.
Not necessarily. If the drop rate for 3GS is as low as 0.4%, that plus "less than 1%" would equal just the average.
No, just a little over 200dpi and most GPU's still struggle with the resolution. (I still use one of these every day)
I have to use two DVI cables for the display to get any kind of acceptable signal, but it's well worth it.
Anyway, 200dpi is good enough, even with perfect vision one won't be sitting as close to the display to really notice there are any pixels. I just wish someone would still manufacture and sell these, IBM quit the PC and display business in 2005.
The display response time isn't worse than other displays from the era. The refresh rate isn't actually too bad, a regular graphics card drives it at 33.8Hz nowadays and I'd guess the largest limiting factor at the time was the driving electronics (dual-link dvi wasn't invented yet etc).
Sony probably also profits from the technology they bought from IBM by making 200dpi cell phone displays better than larger displays. After all, most people aren't demanding anything better than "HDTV", because most don't know anything better ever existed.
Where are these mythical 150+dpi displays sold?
The very first post in this thread links to one. That's what started the discussion.
These aren't really available anywhere. There are just every now and then someone who sells a single display on ebay and they still sell for thousands a piece.
Just check out http://tilestack.com/
It's a backwards compatible HyperCard clone using just standard browser features (no flash or other plugins). Works fine on most mobile devices too, including iPhones and iPads.
An actual high res monitor would be better than any of these supposedly "HD" screens kludged together using expensive GPU's.
I do have a 22.2" 3840x2400 IPS display (ViewSonic VP2290b), it's from 2003. It's driven by two DVI ports of a regular GeForce 8800GT in my Mac Pro. Additionally, I have two low-res (1920x1200) 24" screens connected to another GPU for video and games.
IBM sold their monitor factory to Sony around the same time they sold their ThinkPad business to Lenovo in 2005.
Since then, the meaning of "HD" has been just 1920x1080, just 22.5% of the resolution these 3840x2400 displays have.
Here's a wikipedia article about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
Palm's Graffiti was cross-platform, available on several PDA platforms. It was pretty popular on the Newton, because the speed and reliability of Newton's standard handwriting recognizion sucked. Graffiti was such a successful product that Palm later had the resources to build Palm Pilots as "K.I.S.S." PDA's.
The Amiga sold millions, but that doesn't mean it's the market leader anymore.
The Amiga was always a niche and crappy enough to be killed in the gaming computer niche by the 386 clones with VGA (MCGA) graphics.
Oh, and BTW, they have Excel for Macs now, too.
Excel and Word as you know them today are actually originating from Microsoft's Mac versions of said apps. 1980's and early 1990's stuff. Meanwhile, the MS-DOS MS Word and MS-DOS MS Multiplan (spreadsheet) were something entirely different.
Then came Windows 3.0 and Word For Windows: essentially a dumbed down version of the Mac Word. Then they ported the Mac Excel, added PowerPoint and started calling the combination Microsoft Office (6.0) and released it simultaneously for Mac and Windows.
However, it was an order of magnitude slower and buggier, while not really providing anything new over the previous Mac versions, so it wasn't exactly a sales success on the Mac. Since then, they have released about as many Mac versions as Windows versions(they omitted the '95 version of 6.0).
Still.. typical Microsoft quality, so Apple created iWork to replace it. Earlier, Safari was created to replace the Mac version of Internet Explorer. Unlike Mac IE, Microsoft actually still makes money from the Mac MS Office, so they continue to develop it.
Meanwhile, I'm going to go back to my Amiga, which is the number one selling computer.
In which parallel universe? Even classic macs sold better than amigas.
I'm not sure I get how replacing the mouse pointer with your finger is supposed to change anything.
It's not. That's where non-gesture-multitouch touch interfaces fail.
..and software that is an order of magnitude slower.
Yeah... the iPad is designed exactly for the puposes you listed. That's exactly what everyone needs to do on their book reader / internet tablet.
Supporting flash in its current iteration would have added over $120 to the iPad's hardware cost, and dropped the battery life to under 3 hours. Seriously, you'd vote for that?
Of course, because that would make the mac fags less cocky about the performance of their new toy. Also, what else could we complain about then, lack of linux support?
The average "soccer mom"/"joe sixpack" are pretty good at leeching torrents nowadays and most of them learn that stuff labeled with "h264" are better than stuff labeled with "xvid". Ogg Theora, nobody knows about that, except a few nerds.
One of the reasons they were bad, was that there was no well-defined API in the browser for video plugins.
With the DOM of HTML5, there is one now.
When the IMG tag was introduced, the initial support was for XPM and such now long ago obsolete image / icon formats.
Whichever codecs we choose to support in our browsers now will likely be obsolete in a few years anyway.