There wasn't really any alternative to what USB offered at the time. The most standard thing you could count on was the COM port. But it took a while for interesting peripherals to reach the market anyway.
By "remembering it clearly" you must mean "drew a conclusion of a few limited observations at the time".
Even after USB exploded, USB ports were still unlikely to be found on PC until 2000 or so.
The article you linked directly contradicts you. As a result, virtually all PCs from late 1996 on had a pair of USB ports on the back-- that's 200 million or so USB-equipped PCs by the end of 1998
Don't think the rear location means anything. Nobody put computer ports on the front back then, not even the iMac, which put it on the side along with the rest of the plugs.
Using Motorola as a counterexample is a poor choice, since most Motorola phones won't charge over a standard USB cable unless it's recognized on the other end.
Apple did the exact same thing. Luckily, it didn't take too long for the manufacturers to make iPod compatible chargers. But many cheaper USB hubs won't charge iPods, wheras lesser known MP3 players do fine. I guess manufacturers aren't falling over themselves to support Motorola, but there you go.
Just thought I'd point out that a lot Blu-Ray movies don't even have that resolution, but 1920x800 because they were made with the cinemascope aspect ratio. Why they couldn't just make downscaling standard is beyond me.
I haven't seen enough quality setups to make an informed judgement, but the quality of film projection in 90% of the cinemas I've seen has been plain bad. With digital projection it seems that it's much easier to get reasonably high quality on the screen.
I also doubt that 35mm really does have an edge over the latest digital cinematic cameras. Plus the fact that most movies go through 2K digital post-production anyway.
Curiously though, the superior design thing only really started with the iMac. Previously macs came in the same beige plastic, and to many seemed slightly retarded. Don't even get me started about the mouse.
1995 just called. They want their myths and popular scepticism back. You don't have to be fucking scientist to "agree" that the climate is "changing". There is enough empirical evidence for that.
While you do point out topics of debate, it changes nothing to the veracity of the original statement: Anthrpogenic CO2 has and will cause global warming.
Absolute bullcrap. Forests are for the most part a constant in the carbon cycle. If a forest is cleared or created, that changes the amount of atmouspheric CO2. But while it's just sitting there, the amount of CO2 absorbed is roughly equal to that created by decomposition.
Fossil fuels however are huge cabon sinks which have not been touched for many millions of years.
Whenever I hear people complain about "lossy audio" I wonder whether any of these people have acually looked at the fourier spectrum of these files or even just compared the waveform.
It always makes me laugh when people praise "guitars" over synthesizers. An electric guitar/amp combo is nothig other than a very primitive analog synthesizer which uses oscillating wires as a wave-gen.
That's due to the majoritarian voting system, where a few percentage gain can mean a switch to an absolute majority, and twice the number of votes can get you ten times the number of seats.
Nobody doubts that the U.S. has enough financial, scientific and political resources to make new weapons whenever they please. Heck, the military comes up with some sci-fi technology all the time.
But actually developing and arming yourself with them is taking your guns to town. No one with an understanding of space technology would find it particularly impressive that the military can shoot down a satellite, so when you do it's just being a showoff with your gun.
Keeping that price discrepancy only encourages the wage discrepancy.
Also, remember that this is about a profitable business, not a single employee. The software company probably employed American people, so why should they sell below-margin just so that other countries can get it cheaper? In all likelihood, they are using it on hardware that cost almost as much as in the US. And they have to compete with other countries for all other production costs. Steel doesn't have a "china discount".
You'll probably find that they weren't doing anything against local laws. Copyright is not a clear-cut issue in China. It explicitly excludes foreign nationals for example, so businesses must set up joint-ventures just to give them some kind of backup.
Power is the derivative of energy. Heat is energy. Your point?
They're actually better than Photovoltaic cells because they're more efficient, generate more power per area, don't need batteries and are much cheaper.
The simple fact is that if you're having problems with reflections, you're using your monitor/laptop in the wrong place. Period. And if you're worried about color fidelity, you certainly shouldn't be relying on on a Laptop in sub-optimal conditions.
As to your experience, what the fuck do you mean with "additive and subtractive color rendering"? Subtractive color has nothing to do with computer displays in the first place. And the optical coating on premium glossy displays means that any light reflected is monochromatic. Your diffuse-reflecting matte screen OTOH shows up every color of the rainbow.
You mean, instantly gibing them superior contrast and color saturation?
Yeah, whoever came up with that one should be fired/sarcasm
What's the point of buying an expensive screen if you're effectively looking at it through a piece of tracing paper (which would probably be a better idea for people worried about glare)
You mean, instantly improving performance with contrast and color saturation?
Yeah, whoever thought of that idea should be fired/sarcasm
What's the point of paying for an expensive screen if you're effectively looking at it through tracing paper (Which would probably be a better choice for people concerned about glare a lot)
Don't you realize that your ad-hominem attack is just the kind of supposed supremacy that he is criticizing.
How does the correctness of his speech or writing discredit any of his claims? What does it even say about intelligence? Maybe he isn't a native english-speaker. Does that discredit his argument?
BTW, looking at the quote, it seems to me that you've mistaken a simple typo and punctuation error as a grammatical error. It certainly makes sense to me.
2. That's the reason why for my Samsung TV with a digital tuner has a PCMCIA slot at the back. It's rarely used, but there are certain Pay TV providers in Europe which use encrypted DVB-T signals as well as public broadcasters who wish to prevent people who haven't payed the horrendous charge for a TV license from watching their channels.
I wasn't saying that it wouldn't look any better. But the requirements for coupon eligible boxes (only RF or composite video output) clearly place them at the bottom of the bucket.
If it were only one Watt per device it wouldn't be so bad. But the fact is that many use much more than that.
It's not as if these low-energy devices didn't exist. My Samsung TV with a digital receiver uses much less than one Watt (the energy meter fails at these levels, so I don't know exactly what it is) in standby, and the same goes for my cheap-ass digital PVR satellite receiver. It can be done.
Actually, this isn't true in most wall-wart devices unless they use switched mode power supplies. They basically generate the same amount of waste as when they're on. A battery or capacitor OTOH will help minimize the power usage substantially if all that is needed is a minimal current.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a very long time since I've seen any Windows PC being advertised more than Apple's starting price.
Bad example. If you want the version with 8 GB of storage instead of 4, you have to get one with XP.
There wasn't really any alternative to what USB offered at the time. The most standard thing you could count on was the COM port. But it took a while for interesting peripherals to reach the market anyway.
By "remembering it clearly" you must mean "drew a conclusion of a few limited observations at the time".
Even after USB exploded, USB ports were still unlikely to be found on PC until 2000 or so.
The article you linked directly contradicts you.
As a result, virtually all PCs from late 1996 on had a pair of USB ports on the back-- that's 200 million or so USB-equipped PCs by the end of 1998
Don't think the rear location means anything. Nobody put computer ports on the front back then, not even the iMac, which put it on the side along with the rest of the plugs.
Using Motorola as a counterexample is a poor choice, since most Motorola phones won't charge over a standard USB cable unless it's recognized on the other end.
Apple did the exact same thing. Luckily, it didn't take too long for the manufacturers to make iPod compatible chargers. But many cheaper USB hubs won't charge iPods, wheras lesser known MP3 players do fine.
I guess manufacturers aren't falling over themselves to support Motorola, but there you go.
Just thought I'd point out that a lot Blu-Ray movies don't even have that resolution, but 1920x800 because they were made with the cinemascope aspect ratio.
Why they couldn't just make downscaling standard is beyond me.
I haven't seen enough quality setups to make an informed judgement, but the quality of film projection in 90% of the cinemas I've seen has been plain bad. With digital projection it seems that it's much easier to get reasonably high quality on the screen.
I also doubt that 35mm really does have an edge over the latest digital cinematic cameras. Plus the fact that most movies go through 2K digital post-production anyway.
Curiously though, the superior design thing only really started with the iMac. Previously macs came in the same beige plastic, and to many seemed slightly retarded. Don't even get me started about the mouse.
1995 just called. They want their myths and popular scepticism back.
You don't have to be fucking scientist to "agree" that the climate is "changing". There is enough empirical evidence for that.
While you do point out topics of debate, it changes nothing to the veracity of the original statement: Anthrpogenic CO2 has and will cause global warming.
Absolute bullcrap. Forests are for the most part a constant in the carbon cycle. If a forest is cleared or created, that changes the amount of atmouspheric CO2. But while it's just sitting there, the amount of CO2 absorbed is roughly equal to that created by decomposition.
Fossil fuels however are huge cabon sinks which have not been touched for many millions of years.
Whenever I hear people complain about "lossy audio" I wonder whether any of these people have acually looked at the fourier spectrum of these files or even just compared the waveform.
It always makes me laugh when people praise "guitars" over synthesizers. An electric guitar/amp combo is nothig other than a very primitive analog synthesizer which uses oscillating wires as a wave-gen.
That's due to the majoritarian voting system, where a few percentage gain can mean a switch to an absolute majority, and twice the number of votes can get you ten times the number of seats.
Nobody doubts that the U.S. has enough financial, scientific and political resources to make new weapons whenever they please. Heck, the military comes up with some sci-fi technology all the time.
But actually developing and arming yourself with them is taking your guns to town.
No one with an understanding of space technology would find it particularly impressive that the military can shoot down a satellite, so when you do it's just being a showoff with your gun.
Keeping that price discrepancy only encourages the wage discrepancy.
Also, remember that this is about a profitable business, not a single employee.
The software company probably employed American people, so why should they sell below-margin just so that other countries can get it cheaper?
In all likelihood, they are using it on hardware that cost almost as much as in the US.
And they have to compete with other countries for all other production costs. Steel doesn't have a "china discount".
You'll probably find that they weren't doing anything against local laws. Copyright is not a clear-cut issue in China. It explicitly excludes foreign nationals for example, so businesses must set up joint-ventures just to give them some kind of backup.
Power is the derivative of energy. Heat is energy. Your point?
They're actually better than Photovoltaic cells because they're more efficient, generate more power per area, don't need batteries and are much cheaper.
The simple fact is that if you're having problems with reflections, you're using your monitor/laptop in the wrong place. Period.
And if you're worried about color fidelity, you certainly shouldn't be relying on on a Laptop in sub-optimal conditions.
As to your experience, what the fuck do you mean with "additive and subtractive color rendering"?
Subtractive color has nothing to do with computer displays in the first place.
And the optical coating on premium glossy displays means that any light reflected is monochromatic. Your diffuse-reflecting matte screen OTOH shows up every color of the rainbow.
You mean, instantly gibing them superior contrast and color saturation?
Yeah, whoever came up with that one should be fired /sarcasm
What's the point of buying an expensive screen if you're effectively looking at it through a piece of tracing paper (which would probably be a better idea for people worried about glare)
You mean, instantly improving performance with contrast and color saturation?
Yeah, whoever thought of that idea should be fired/sarcasm
What's the point of paying for an expensive screen if you're effectively looking at it through tracing paper (Which would probably be a better choice for people concerned about glare a lot)
Don't you realize that your ad-hominem attack is just the kind of supposed supremacy that he is criticizing.
How does the correctness of his speech or writing discredit any of his claims? What does it even say about intelligence?
Maybe he isn't a native english-speaker. Does that discredit his argument?
BTW, looking at the quote, it seems to me that you've mistaken a simple typo and punctuation error as a grammatical error. It certainly makes sense to me.
2. That's the reason why for my Samsung TV with a digital tuner has a PCMCIA slot at the back. It's rarely used, but there are certain Pay TV providers in Europe which use encrypted DVB-T signals as well as public broadcasters who wish to prevent people who haven't payed the horrendous charge for a TV license from watching their channels.
I wasn't saying that it wouldn't look any better. But the requirements for coupon eligible boxes (only RF or composite video output) clearly place them at the bottom of the bucket.
If it were only one Watt per device it wouldn't be so bad. But the fact is that many use much more than that.
It's not as if these low-energy devices didn't exist. My Samsung TV with a digital receiver uses much less than one Watt (the energy meter fails at these levels, so I don't know exactly what it is) in standby, and the same goes for my cheap-ass digital PVR satellite receiver. It can be done.
Actually, this isn't true in most wall-wart devices unless they use switched mode power supplies. They basically generate the same amount of waste as when they're on. A battery or capacitor OTOH will help minimize the power usage substantially if all that is needed is a minimal current.