How is this offtopic? Experiences with Real Player were so unsatisfactory that many people I know won't use ever use a RealNetworks product.
*buffering*
In that vein, some things I have seen in some Windows programs, as well as in OS/2's WPS GUI are the options of selecting "Beginner, Intermediary, Advanced" for how the menu system is created... Beginner showing the most common choices, while Advanced shows everything including the kitchen sink.
Without knowing too much more about your software - or what features are insisted upon being easily available, I dont know if that applies.
For broadest use, I would choose the specs used in later versions of Windows for Windows based apps...
Should have read (changes in bold):
For broadest use under Windows, I would choose the specs used in later non-Vista versions of Windows (such as XP) for Windows based apps...
and (added)...
The CUA references should have everything including such things as keyboard shortcuts, etc (as well as main menu placement... ie: always starts with File, Edit, View - and ends with Help).
There are CUA guidelines for various operating systems. You can check out that documentation to determine where what components/options you have should be placed. They are pretty thorough.
IBM's was written in 1987, and updated since (and followed for the most part in the Windows and OS/2 world).
Microsoft's has of course recently changed with the advent of Vista and related v2007 programs.
For broadest use, I would choose the specs used in later versions of Windows for Windows based apps... for Linux, I am not sure where you would check - but am sure some sort of guidelines should exist someplace.
A place with links and references to IBM's CUA can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
From there, or with similar searches, you can find references for related Windows CUA stuff
...I wonder how much pain it might become, to settle? After all, if the cost of settling my (alleged, unsubstantiated) piracy becomes a mere forty dollars per album, I might not be so disinclined to just sign a piece of paper and fork over a tiny bit of cash.
Yeah, I too would be willing to pay them money (2-4 times what the CDs cost) for something I didnt do, based off a lack of evidence, inaccurate evidence, and illegally obtained evidence...
That's a great plan!
Oh wait... what am I thinking?
I hope you arent serious. And even if you are... $40 an album times the large quantity they claim get shared in every lawsuit isnt "a tiny bit of cash"
Besides the fact, do you really enjoy handing over money for something you didnt do? If so, please let me know... I'll gladly send you my address so you can start sending me money for things I'll claim you did (with no real proof - just like them), so you can also send me money.
Either you are very well off... or... well, I will let someone else come up with an "or"
There are already companies selling cells that they claim get 18-23% (dunno the accuracy of their claims... but they arent the only ones near that figure). For instance...
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/
Pretty neat stats... and the prices apparently aren't exorbitant.
...used them. He paid (after rebates) $36K for a setup that delivers almost all of his needs.
And of course, as others have mentioned, higher efficiency ones can be had - at a premium.
I'm still waiting for the enzyme based print at home thing to be released... sadly, I havent heard anything more about it since it hit here months ago.
Here's an article. A correction to note: my post should have said WfWG3.11 (Windows for Workgroups). Some items to note... MS is still selling it till Nov 2008. The announcement was made June 2008.
Now... where is it still used? Notta clue... but there are people who commented to that article pointing out places it is still used (some they work at, some they just know about), and it includes some embedded uses. Here's one:
It's used to control a piece of laboratory equipment here. Running on a P75 Dell
An occasional archiving of data files to cure slow down and it does the job fine.
No idea where "here" is or what laboratory equipment... but I can see hardware vendors not wanting to need to update software and apps that run a specialized embedded app that doesnt need to be changed.
Besides, I wasnt debating whether it is still in wide use, limited use, being purchased for embedded systems, etc. My point was that this is a policy that MS has had in place for over a decade and a half - as evidenced by the fact that they havent yet but will finally be stopping sales of WfWG in November for embedded markets.
Killing off one of their OS's has always been a multi-step process. Home user sales, OEM consumer install sales, business sales, and then specialized markets (en masse, or a market or two at a time). That was solely my point (with my perceived reason that strategy is needed by them - continued bloat). Sorry if it was not properly communicated in my original post.
Microsoft seems to think there still was one and needed to kill it. See the post below. Here's the link even (or search/. for the topic that discusses it - you'll find info on what it is used for there):
Keep modding me down for being correct. You dont have to like the truth... how about spending the mod points on the GP instead - it's not like this hasnt been covered on/. enough.
Amazing how one can take pieces of disparate information, couple it with nonsensical comments and very flimsy commonality and turn it into a conspiracy theory....
Ummm... this IS Slashdot... why is that so amazing? Happens here every few minutes!
The thing I dont understand about BoB is that it was a blatant ripoff of PackardBell's crappy similar entry - which went nowhere at all. How Microsoft made the mistake of "borrowing" their design, adding "Clippy" and the rest of his idiotic designs, and thinking it would go anywhere still amazes me.
You have no idea how many thousands (palettes worth) of BoB they sent to each CompUSA for launch...
It was quite funny. Well, for us... I dont think anyone at Microsoft thought it was funny... (or if they did, they probably didnt keep their jobs very long).
Microsoft never claimed they were killing off XP. They claimed that for normal desktops and most laptops, it soon will be no longer available.
Microsoft still "maintains" and sells their older operating systems for a variety of other needs, such as embedded devices, low power devices, etc. This move coincides with that. In the Windows world, the XO is far from what people would consider a normal PC. While Linux variants, eComStation and OS/2 can still run on "outdated" hardware, newer versions of Windows cannot (run being defined as run in a usable fashion, including doing such things as word processing, etc). While their OS strategy is largely to blame for that, their policy does address it by their continued selling of older operating systems when the requirements are met (ie: slower and/or less powerful hardware, embedded devices, set-top boxes, xBox/xBox360s, etc).
The sadder point, which would have been a valid one for you to bring up, is that the current bloat in their newer OS incarnations is the cause for them having such a policy. Bloat which is not needed in any form or fashion - as an example, a fully implemented (we can hope for that day) Wine or Odin on Linux or OS/2 or eComStation would be able to run virtually any Windows app on OS's that require a much smaller CPU and memory footprint, and make far better use of the available resources.
Thus, (to bring this conversation full circle), Microsoft, instead of being technologically innovative in OS design, has decided to hold on to their older operating systems for the hardware still being built that they know their newer ones cannot run on. It's the same reason why Win3.1 sales in similar vertical markets is just ending now.
Actually, from what I understand the correct answer is money (or to put it differently, lack of tax revenue - such as what is generated from alcohol, cigarettes, etc) and a tobacco industry that is not willing to change their infrastructure and thus lobbies for stricter laws in this area.
Or maybe, to be more accurate, there are a few reasons, and the three of us have hit on three different ones that all are part of the total problem (of legalizing pot).
I would expect that no lawsuits would be pending, or ever brought to surface - for a few reasons.
1) They are far from the first to implement such a feature... too much prior art existed
2) One of the companies that made excessive use of "Tree View" was IBM, when they rewrote OS/2's GUI (without MS's involvement) for OS/2 v2 - which far predates both the application date of this patent and the granted date.
I doubt they want to sue IBM for something they (Microsoft) did not come up with.
I also doubt they want to sue anyone else, because doing so would invariably bring IBM into the picture for such reasons (listed in #2 above), as well as force IBM (and others) to bring up the prior existence of such a "structure" which would thus be ground to invalidate Microsoft's patent.
I am sure that IBM did not come up with this idea - but they did implement it long before Microsoft filed for a patent, and I am sure that the OS/2 GUI patents do cover it, and reference prior art as well.
This is a (pandora's) box that I doubt Microsoft wants to open. Instead, I think they will use it (or may have been using it, or may consider to use it) for nothing other than trying to force smaller companies without the legal wherewithal to pay them royalties for a technology they did not create.
daemonburrito... I hadnt suspected I'd need to point out all of that, but obviously I should have. Thanks for pointing it out to him...
In addition (to Ahnteis), it doesnt limit someone's choice of monitors... it limits what OS the monitor will run on... meaning the monitor becomes a "Vista Compatible Only" monitor... much like WinModems were for quite some time till others figured out how to implement the Windows based modem features in CPU in a compatible fashion.
Ahnteis: nothing personal here either... you are just wrong in both aspects of your post... and didnt even fully read mine. I said it was possible - not that MS intended it. Let me point out a key paragraph in my post (emphasis added):
"Note the sarcasm in the words... yet it is quite possible the truth will follow that path nonetheless... but it would be a stupid move. Especially with other technologies out there that would be competing against this."
Inferior don't you mean? - Hence the fact that they're hardly used. They're really expensive and only last a few thousand hours before fading. They also bring back the burn-in problems which we thought we'd long since forgotten from phosphor based displays. Hence, if I walk into a local shop, they have NO OLED screens at all.
Actually, Dell is selling laptops that have OLED options for the screen. They have improved quite a bit since when you last looked at them.
That aside, I still think they beat MS's new technology (I havent looked at a monochrome monitor in years - nor do I plan on again if at all possible).
As both technologies mature, I would thus expect that OLED technology remains above the curve. In addition, it is still far more efficient in lighting... MS's idea uses tricks to decrease light waste on a wasteful technology, while OLEDs display the light you are looking at without the use of mirrors and lenses to try to reach (they exceed) that efficiency.
They tend to only be used in things with an inherently short lifespan, eg mobile phones, which are rarely used after a 2-3 years. Nobody would buy a TV which is quarter as bright after 2 years and has a channel logo burnt into the top left.
Yes they would, did and still do... it's called Plasma screens... which while improved, still have those problems. The early models (years worth of production models) exhibitted major image burn problems and major image/color fade problems. While the current ones are better, they still have those problems.
On a side note, LCDs exhibit those problems as well - even if to a much lesser extent. The crystals dont fully close over time and thus start leaving an afterimage. I've bought quite a few used LCDs that were used in certain vertical markets, and as soon as you turned the things on, you could see the burn-in from the image that used to be on the screen.
Even newer ones do this as well... at Star Trek New Voyages, we've replaced various of the "blinky light panels" on the Enterprise bridge with LCDs... showing the same blinky lights in the same place over and over again have started to leave ghost images on a few - none of which are very old (all are actually relatively new). Not a big issue for us, as with the plexi over them, it's not noticable on camera... but it is there.
As a side note, perhaps you should research what you talk about before you post (just a thought)... Sony and others have already started either production - or sales - of OLED TVs to replace or supplement their current LCD and Plasma offerings. Some of which are already being reviewed online.
Actually, all they need to do is follow the DRM laden specs that high end monitors on HDMI are supposed to use in Vista - and lock the monitors in that mode.
All Linux and other OS's need to do is enable DRM... MS isnt locking them out of anything... they arent implementing the right technology to use it, even though they "can" (or can't because the video card manufacturers wont release the specs needed to modify drivers under Linux).
This would have the same effect, and put the blame at someone else's feet (ie: not Microsoft's).
Note the sarcasm in the words... yet it is quite possible the truth will follow that path nonetheless... but it would be a stupid move. Especially with other technologies out there that would be competing against this.
Actually, sometimes it depends on the subject matter and their biases.
In some cases, selectively "feeding" the troll once or twice is a good things, then let them proceed to show everyone else they are idiots.
Sometimes, they can be their worst enemy.
That of course doesnt work for the truly intelligent trolls who count on a lack of understanding from the rest of your userbase when making their comments... so again, it depends on the type of content they are commenting on.
I've found in situations like that, "feeding" them initially is all it takes for them to continue to act the idiot and dig themselves deeper, eliciting a reaction from the rest of the forum users... and there's the beauty. People in the forums are more likely to believe each other than the forum owners... so when other forum users come in and slam the troll, others are more likely to believe those forum members as opposed to if you (the moderator) keep pointing out that he is wrong. The initial statement or two should always be as far as you go - to set the record straight.
And of course, if they are abusive of other forum members, lifestyles, religions, ethnicities, etc; then you may simply wish to ban them on those grounds. The same goes for if they are overly disruptive in the forums - but of course, let them step in it first, then push them off that cliff.
As a side note, the trolls dont always lose interest... especially if it is a topic "dear" to their heart and/or they seem to think they have some sort of grudge against you or the topic, and/or you are a competing forum/product. In those cases, no, they wont go away. In one forum I moderate, we have one such person. He's been banned multiple times, signs up again, will sit for a while before going back to the same subject and spouting off more nonsense and being generally abusive of anyone who disagrees. He's held (in the last year) six accounts, went to the effort of switching his IP to get a couple (when we blocked his IP range), and has tried signing up literally dozens of times - the "ignore" treatment did not work with him - nor did banning him 6 times. He still tries. He's move to other forums to complain about us and spew hate there too (and been banned from various of them as well), and still moves on.
Some people (like him) just dont have a life, and let their hate be their sole driving purpose in life.
Fortunately, most trolls dont fit that category... but some (like him) do.
So, as with anything that involves dealing with other people, there is no one perfect answer. Find the answer that fits each of your particular trolls.
Link? What kind of IBM servers? I like IBM but I've looked at their regular 1U servers and they don't seem much different from something I can buy from SuperMicro for way less.
Any Netfinity or x Series that is true server class (ie: not their Netfinity/Intellistation duplicate labelled - or their x Series/Intellistation duplicate labelled).
To find the appropriate info, you need to check out each's Hardware Maintenance Manual or User Guide or Technical Specifications Manual. As a for instance, a Netfinity 7000 M10 is designed/rated to handle 10KV. The power supplies seem to do some level of filtering as well, and store 10-15 seconds of charge to do that. Of course, they also do auto switching in the event of loss of power on one PS (or in case of PS failure).
I think the key in your statement is "I like IBM but I've looked at their regular 1U servers..."
Like everyone else's offerings, they too sell low end server solutions that are not necessarily "server class" hardware. Their larger ones are highly redundant (and VERY expensive as well - I prefer picking up a 2 year old model that's been refurbished and recertified... but that's not an option for many of our clients who want "new yet cheap, cant afford redundancy").
Besides, a good backup solution makes such protection redundant.
But, if you or I or whatever server admin had their choice, I am pretty sure we would all choose (1) a highly redundant, internally over protected server and (2) a very good backup scenario including high end filtered, sine wave corrected, full conversion, always run from battery UPS and a generator option that put out clean stable power as it's backup.
Ok, people who don't just read the executive summary knew this all along, but perhaps it's necessary that someone spells it out for the rest: Journaling and RAID do not prevent data loss in case of a power outage (and many more circumstances). If you know why, just skip the article. If you're wondering how you can lose data if you write everything to two disks and your filesystem guarantees its own consistency, then perhaps this is the wake up call that you need.
Any Server Admin who didnt realize that isnt really a server admin. And the rest of the world probably doesnt care or need to know.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this offtopic? Experiences with Real Player were so unsatisfactory that many people I know won't use ever use a RealNetworks product. *buffering*
I really
*buffering*
dont
*buffering*
know what y
*buffering*
ou are ta
*buffering*
lking about...
Xzzy has a very good point.
In that vein, some things I have seen in some Windows programs, as well as in OS/2's WPS GUI are the options of selecting "Beginner, Intermediary, Advanced" for how the menu system is created... Beginner showing the most common choices, while Advanced shows everything including the kitchen sink.
Without knowing too much more about your software - or what features are insisted upon being easily available, I dont know if that applies.
For broadest use, I would choose the specs used in later versions of Windows for Windows based apps...
Should have read (changes in bold):
For broadest use under Windows, I would choose the specs used in later non-Vista versions of Windows (such as XP) for Windows based apps...
and (added)...
The CUA references should have everything including such things as keyboard shortcuts, etc (as well as main menu placement... ie: always starts with File, Edit, View - and ends with Help).
There are CUA guidelines for various operating systems. You can check out that documentation to determine where what components/options you have should be placed. They are pretty thorough.
IBM's was written in 1987, and updated since (and followed for the most part in the Windows and OS/2 world).
Microsoft's has of course recently changed with the advent of Vista and related v2007 programs.
For broadest use, I would choose the specs used in later versions of Windows for Windows based apps... for Linux, I am not sure where you would check - but am sure some sort of guidelines should exist someplace.
A place with links and references to IBM's CUA can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
From there, or with similar searches, you can find references for related Windows CUA stuff
...I wonder how much pain it might become, to settle? After all, if the cost of settling my (alleged, unsubstantiated) piracy becomes a mere forty dollars per album, I might not be so disinclined to just sign a piece of paper and fork over a tiny bit of cash.
Yeah, I too would be willing to pay them money (2-4 times what the CDs cost) for something I didnt do, based off a lack of evidence, inaccurate evidence, and illegally obtained evidence...
That's a great plan!
Oh wait... what am I thinking?
I hope you arent serious. And even if you are... $40 an album times the large quantity they claim get shared in every lawsuit isnt "a tiny bit of cash"
Besides the fact, do you really enjoy handing over money for something you didnt do? If so, please let me know... I'll gladly send you my address so you can start sending me money for things I'll claim you did (with no real proof - just like them), so you can also send me money.
Either you are very well off... or... well, I will let someone else come up with an "or"
Printed solar panels...
Found something a little more recent:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/05/massachussetts-company-develops-inkjet-printed-solar-panels/
http://www.konarka.com/index.php/site/newsdetail/
And NanoSolar from over 2 years ago:
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/?p=23
There are already companies selling cells that they claim get 18-23% (dunno the accuracy of their claims... but they arent the only ones near that figure). For instance...
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/
Pretty neat stats... and the prices apparently aren't exorbitant.
The guy in this article:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2326042,00.asp
...used them. He paid (after rebates) $36K for a setup that delivers almost all of his needs.
And of course, as others have mentioned, higher efficiency ones can be had - at a premium.
I'm still waiting for the enzyme based print at home thing to be released... sadly, I havent heard anything more about it since it hit here months ago.
Here's an article. A correction to note: my post should have said WfWG3.11 (Windows for Workgroups). Some items to note... MS is still selling it till Nov 2008. The announcement was made June 2008.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/11/microsoft_retires_windows_311_for_workgroups/
Now... where is it still used? Notta clue... but there are people who commented to that article pointing out places it is still used (some they work at, some they just know about), and it includes some embedded uses. Here's one:
It's used to control a piece of laboratory equipment here. Running on a P75 Dell
An occasional archiving of data files to cure slow down and it does the job fine.
No idea where "here" is or what laboratory equipment... but I can see hardware vendors not wanting to need to update software and apps that run a specialized embedded app that doesnt need to be changed.
Besides, I wasnt debating whether it is still in wide use, limited use, being purchased for embedded systems, etc. My point was that this is a policy that MS has had in place for over a decade and a half - as evidenced by the fact that they havent yet but will finally be stopping sales of WfWG in November for embedded markets.
Killing off one of their OS's has always been a multi-step process. Home user sales, OEM consumer install sales, business sales, and then specialized markets (en masse, or a market or two at a time). That was solely my point (with my perceived reason that strategy is needed by them - continued bloat). Sorry if it was not properly communicated in my original post.
Microsoft seems to think there still was one and needed to kill it. See the post below. Here's the link even (or search /. for the topic that discusses it - you'll find info on what it is used for there):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=627113&cid=24355759
Keep modding me down for being correct. You dont have to like the truth... how about spending the mod points on the GP instead - it's not like this hasnt been covered on /. enough.
Gotta love /. - glad I have karma to burn...
Amazing how one can take pieces of disparate information, couple it with nonsensical comments and very flimsy commonality and turn it into a conspiracy theory....
Ummm... this IS Slashdot... why is that so amazing? Happens here every few minutes!
The thing I dont understand about BoB is that it was a blatant ripoff of PackardBell's crappy similar entry - which went nowhere at all. How Microsoft made the mistake of "borrowing" their design, adding "Clippy" and the rest of his idiotic designs, and thinking it would go anywhere still amazes me.
You have no idea how many thousands (palettes worth) of BoB they sent to each CompUSA for launch...
It was quite funny. Well, for us... I dont think anyone at Microsoft thought it was funny... (or if they did, they probably didnt keep their jobs very long).
Microsoft never claimed they were killing off XP. They claimed that for normal desktops and most laptops, it soon will be no longer available.
Microsoft still "maintains" and sells their older operating systems for a variety of other needs, such as embedded devices, low power devices, etc. This move coincides with that. In the Windows world, the XO is far from what people would consider a normal PC. While Linux variants, eComStation and OS/2 can still run on "outdated" hardware, newer versions of Windows cannot (run being defined as run in a usable fashion, including doing such things as word processing, etc). While their OS strategy is largely to blame for that, their policy does address it by their continued selling of older operating systems when the requirements are met (ie: slower and/or less powerful hardware, embedded devices, set-top boxes, xBox/xBox360s, etc).
The sadder point, which would have been a valid one for you to bring up, is that the current bloat in their newer OS incarnations is the cause for them having such a policy. Bloat which is not needed in any form or fashion - as an example, a fully implemented (we can hope for that day) Wine or Odin on Linux or OS/2 or eComStation would be able to run virtually any Windows app on OS's that require a much smaller CPU and memory footprint, and make far better use of the available resources.
Thus, (to bring this conversation full circle), Microsoft, instead of being technologically innovative in OS design, has decided to hold on to their older operating systems for the hardware still being built that they know their newer ones cannot run on. It's the same reason why Win3.1 sales in similar vertical markets is just ending now.
Actually, from what I understand the correct answer is money (or to put it differently, lack of tax revenue - such as what is generated from alcohol, cigarettes, etc) and a tobacco industry that is not willing to change their infrastructure and thus lobbies for stricter laws in this area.
Or maybe, to be more accurate, there are a few reasons, and the three of us have hit on three different ones that all are part of the total problem (of legalizing pot).
Ah... well, the point still stands... Claim 1 and 3 would still be prior art (Commodore, IBM, and others).
I would expect that no lawsuits would be pending, or ever brought to surface - for a few reasons.
1) They are far from the first to implement such a feature... too much prior art existed
2) One of the companies that made excessive use of "Tree View" was IBM, when they rewrote OS/2's GUI (without MS's involvement) for OS/2 v2 - which far predates both the application date of this patent and the granted date.
I doubt they want to sue IBM for something they (Microsoft) did not come up with.
I also doubt they want to sue anyone else, because doing so would invariably bring IBM into the picture for such reasons (listed in #2 above), as well as force IBM (and others) to bring up the prior existence of such a "structure" which would thus be ground to invalidate Microsoft's patent.
I am sure that IBM did not come up with this idea - but they did implement it long before Microsoft filed for a patent, and I am sure that the OS/2 GUI patents do cover it, and reference prior art as well.
This is a (pandora's) box that I doubt Microsoft wants to open. Instead, I think they will use it (or may have been using it, or may consider to use it) for nothing other than trying to force smaller companies without the legal wherewithal to pay them royalties for a technology they did not create.
Just my opinions.
daemonburrito... I hadnt suspected I'd need to point out all of that, but obviously I should have. Thanks for pointing it out to him...
In addition (to Ahnteis), it doesnt limit someone's choice of monitors... it limits what OS the monitor will run on... meaning the monitor becomes a "Vista Compatible Only" monitor... much like WinModems were for quite some time till others figured out how to implement the Windows based modem features in CPU in a compatible fashion.
Ahnteis: nothing personal here either... you are just wrong in both aspects of your post... and didnt even fully read mine. I said it was possible - not that MS intended it. Let me point out a key paragraph in my post (emphasis added):
"Note the sarcasm in the words... yet it is quite possible the truth will follow that path nonetheless... but it would be a stupid move. Especially with other technologies out there that would be competing against this."
Inferior don't you mean? - Hence the fact that they're hardly used. They're really expensive and only last a few thousand hours before fading. They also bring back the burn-in problems which we thought we'd long since forgotten from phosphor based displays. Hence, if I walk into a local shop, they have NO OLED screens at all.
Actually, Dell is selling laptops that have OLED options for the screen. They have improved quite a bit since when you last looked at them.
That aside, I still think they beat MS's new technology (I havent looked at a monochrome monitor in years - nor do I plan on again if at all possible).
As both technologies mature, I would thus expect that OLED technology remains above the curve. In addition, it is still far more efficient in lighting... MS's idea uses tricks to decrease light waste on a wasteful technology, while OLEDs display the light you are looking at without the use of mirrors and lenses to try to reach (they exceed) that efficiency.
They tend to only be used in things with an inherently short lifespan, eg mobile phones, which are rarely used after a 2-3 years. Nobody would buy a TV which is quarter as bright after 2 years and has a channel logo burnt into the top left.
Yes they would, did and still do... it's called Plasma screens... which while improved, still have those problems. The early models (years worth of production models) exhibitted major image burn problems and major image/color fade problems. While the current ones are better, they still have those problems.
On a side note, LCDs exhibit those problems as well - even if to a much lesser extent. The crystals dont fully close over time and thus start leaving an afterimage. I've bought quite a few used LCDs that were used in certain vertical markets, and as soon as you turned the things on, you could see the burn-in from the image that used to be on the screen.
Even newer ones do this as well... at Star Trek New Voyages, we've replaced various of the "blinky light panels" on the Enterprise bridge with LCDs... showing the same blinky lights in the same place over and over again have started to leave ghost images on a few - none of which are very old (all are actually relatively new). Not a big issue for us, as with the plexi over them, it's not noticable on camera... but it is there.
As a side note, perhaps you should research what you talk about before you post (just a thought)... Sony and others have already started either production - or sales - of OLED TVs to replace or supplement their current LCD and Plasma offerings. Some of which are already being reviewed online.
Actually, all they need to do is follow the DRM laden specs that high end monitors on HDMI are supposed to use in Vista - and lock the monitors in that mode.
All Linux and other OS's need to do is enable DRM... MS isnt locking them out of anything... they arent implementing the right technology to use it, even though they "can" (or can't because the video card manufacturers wont release the specs needed to modify drivers under Linux).
This would have the same effect, and put the blame at someone else's feet (ie: not Microsoft's).
Note the sarcasm in the words... yet it is quite possible the truth will follow that path nonetheless... but it would be a stupid move. Especially with other technologies out there that would be competing against this.
Your quite valid point aside, here's another one to throw into the mix...
Dont OLEDs obsolete this technology already? And I am pretty sure they get more than just blue out of an OLED display... :-)
Actually, sometimes it depends on the subject matter and their biases.
In some cases, selectively "feeding" the troll once or twice is a good things, then let them proceed to show everyone else they are idiots.
Sometimes, they can be their worst enemy.
That of course doesnt work for the truly intelligent trolls who count on a lack of understanding from the rest of your userbase when making their comments... so again, it depends on the type of content they are commenting on.
I've found in situations like that, "feeding" them initially is all it takes for them to continue to act the idiot and dig themselves deeper, eliciting a reaction from the rest of the forum users... and there's the beauty. People in the forums are more likely to believe each other than the forum owners... so when other forum users come in and slam the troll, others are more likely to believe those forum members as opposed to if you (the moderator) keep pointing out that he is wrong. The initial statement or two should always be as far as you go - to set the record straight.
And of course, if they are abusive of other forum members, lifestyles, religions, ethnicities, etc; then you may simply wish to ban them on those grounds. The same goes for if they are overly disruptive in the forums - but of course, let them step in it first, then push them off that cliff.
As a side note, the trolls dont always lose interest... especially if it is a topic "dear" to their heart and/or they seem to think they have some sort of grudge against you or the topic, and/or you are a competing forum/product. In those cases, no, they wont go away. In one forum I moderate, we have one such person. He's been banned multiple times, signs up again, will sit for a while before going back to the same subject and spouting off more nonsense and being generally abusive of anyone who disagrees. He's held (in the last year) six accounts, went to the effort of switching his IP to get a couple (when we blocked his IP range), and has tried signing up literally dozens of times - the "ignore" treatment did not work with him - nor did banning him 6 times. He still tries. He's move to other forums to complain about us and spew hate there too (and been banned from various of them as well), and still moves on.
Some people (like him) just dont have a life, and let their hate be their sole driving purpose in life.
Fortunately, most trolls dont fit that category... but some (like him) do.
So, as with anything that involves dealing with other people, there is no one perfect answer. Find the answer that fits each of your particular trolls.
Link? What kind of IBM servers? I like IBM but I've looked at their regular 1U servers and they don't seem much different from something I can buy from SuperMicro for way less.
Any Netfinity or x Series that is true server class (ie: not their Netfinity/Intellistation duplicate labelled - or their x Series/Intellistation duplicate labelled).
To find the appropriate info, you need to check out each's Hardware Maintenance Manual or User Guide or Technical Specifications Manual. As a for instance, a Netfinity 7000 M10 is designed/rated to handle 10KV. The power supplies seem to do some level of filtering as well, and store 10-15 seconds of charge to do that. Of course, they also do auto switching in the event of loss of power on one PS (or in case of PS failure).
I think the key in your statement is "I like IBM but I've looked at their regular 1U servers..."
Like everyone else's offerings, they too sell low end server solutions that are not necessarily "server class" hardware. Their larger ones are highly redundant (and VERY expensive as well - I prefer picking up a 2 year old model that's been refurbished and recertified... but that's not an option for many of our clients who want "new yet cheap, cant afford redundancy").
Besides, a good backup solution makes such protection redundant.
But, if you or I or whatever server admin had their choice, I am pretty sure we would all choose (1) a highly redundant, internally over protected server and (2) a very good backup scenario including high end filtered, sine wave corrected, full conversion, always run from battery UPS and a generator option that put out clean stable power as it's backup.
But we can hope... :-)
No smugness intended. Nor are my "IBM dinosaurs" or others like them filling landfills.
I should perhaps have expanded that post. Servers, like UPS's are often purchased at the whim of some "IT Manager"
Heck, I sell "servers" of the same sort (but choose to run better ones), as most people wont or cant spend the money on server class hardware.
My point was, a server built from true server class hardware, is usually designed to handle a 10KV spike all by itself.
Maybe you are a smug person in real life... but dont push your normal intents on me, simply because I could have worded my post a little better.
Ok, people who don't just read the executive summary knew this all along, but perhaps it's necessary that someone spells it out for the rest: Journaling and RAID do not prevent data loss in case of a power outage (and many more circumstances). If you know why, just skip the article. If you're wondering how you can lose data if you write everything to two disks and your filesystem guarantees its own consistency, then perhaps this is the wake up call that you need.
Any Server Admin who didnt realize that isnt really a server admin. And the rest of the world probably doesnt care or need to know.
Just a thought... ;-)
My servers run on Electricity
My servers run on Love.
LoL! Remind me to never touch your servers... You can "love" them all you want ;-)