"Second, there will be a "flash rendering" component available. Start with "gnash".
You're kidding yourself, there's no open source player in existence that plays current flash content. Gnash supports a modest ubset of Flash 7. A subset means the majority of Flash 7 files won't work.
The current version is 8, which is vastly improved, and in 3 months 9 will be out, which a rewritten VM.
It does make sense... if you live in Australlia, where the prices are apparently "too expensive" I think the submitter is from there. It's sometimes easy to forget that the internets is a global community.
I live in Bulgaria, where the prices are:
NaN
Error Line 5 column 42: what the heck is a digital download.
That's of course totally bizarre, but from Japanese folks you can only expect totally bizarre and nothing less.
I makes an impression as if they wanted to sound like Viiv? That brand from Intel for home entertainment device? That means nothing and fell flat last time?
Let's hope Nintendo Wii is better.. Huhu.. god damn it I can't write it, read it or say it without chucking.
I've two of them here, and full of them all over the world: Celeron 500Mhz (second hand, apparently), floppy 15 GB Disk, 128 RAM, 100MBps LAN, USB and so on, OEM XP Home.
For total of $80, I can throw in a 15 inch CRT, keyboard mouse and speakers.
So what, does that make me a "yet another ambitious cheap computer" project initiator or I just have more common sense that the rest of the world.
Why is everybody afraid of second hand electronics?
Why, are you afraid I may go mentally unstable and throw myself from a bridge?
but Word and Excel are no longer the primary tasks people use computers for. Web browsing and email are.
I don't need a computer that looks like a brick for that, for the price of this computer (when you add the monitor, kb and so on) you can get a PDA with a large screen, browsing and e-mail capabilities.
Municator? Did they mean communicator but were too cheap to hire a translator?
Apart from the cheap jokes, I wonder if that cheap PC will still be cheap if we tag on the cheap monitor, cheap keyboard, mouse, and of course a pair of cheap stereo speakers on it.
Oh, good, good. Now that we know it's not x86 compatible or Windows compatible so the majority of ordinary people can't do anything useful on it, like run Word or Excel, it also doesn't look like a computer.
It looks like a huge cellphone battery. Except you don't have that big of a cellphone to fit it in.
You know, purely based on context, the meaning of the word "ambitious" starts shifting to a new meaning of "brave but clueless".
Why would I need a computer based on non-Intel chip for? Is there any software for it? The article says we'll do it to say no to WinTel. I need to buy a $150 worthless piece of hardware to say no to WinTel.
Are they targeting kindergardeners or something?
That's like selling cheap Internet that's however not Internet so you can't connect to any site or anything.
They claim their chip performs like P3, that kinda doesn't matter since what will I benchmark it with. Photoshop? 3DSMax? AutoCAD? Ah no, none of them will run on an exotic 64-bit chip under Linux.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but it seems to me that it's rather easy to just toss out an "iTunes is crap" type comment with no explanation at all.
That's because if you ever used it on Windows, explanation is not needed.
But the explanation is that in terms of startup times, RAM, CPU, speed and responsiveness, it's on par with 3DSMax or Photoshop, except those are big heavy professional apps with lots of components, and iTuned/QT are just a damn media player (with a library and a browser pane, in the case of iTunes).
Their interfaces look totally out of place and make no sense in a Windows environment. The way to lure Windows users to OSX is not by totally disrespecting the UI rules of application design of Windows.
And QuickTime crashes way too much for me to respect it. I tremble in fear that Firefox is going down every time I see a quicktime movie load in a web page (and it happens roughly 1 in 4 times).
"I wouldn't be so quick to blame the developers of Apple's Windows applications. Remember, they're basically stuck working with the existing Windows APIs (Win32, MFC), and PowerPlant."
Good, this explains how Windows Media Player 10 is a lot faster, lighter and stable than Quick Time on Windows... Oh wait it doesn't.
Your argument was totally off. I'm primarily a Windows user. I don't complain that all Windows apps are inferior, I complain specifically of the QT/iTunes ports being inferior compared to other apps with their functionality.
"... isn't it? Although I use a Mac Mini most of the time, my work PC with Windows 2000 makes some beautiful music with the latest version of iTunes. What's so bad about it?"
Installs services that take up RAM and CPU even if an iPod isn't attached? Is terribly slow to resize compared to a normal XP application? Is taking too much RAM and CPU for what it is?
Also iTuned doesn't "make some beautiful music", it just plays it, but I guess Steve had you people convinved otherwise. There's some magical filter in it that makes music the best in the universe, doesn't it?
"I remember installing QuickTime and some of the preferences are a wee bit clunky, but no more so than **chuckle** Windows Media Player **shudder**."
It takes ages to start, has horrible interface (slightly improved in version 9 but still very odd) for a Windows application, crashes way too much in Firefox (brings the whole Firefox down one time of 4 when there's a QT movie: crashes in the QT dll), crashes one time out of four when I click a high definition trailer link on apple.com?
It's very slow to go in and out of full screen mode and sometimes displays odd interpolation artifacts (seen neither in WMP or other media players)?
YOU GOT 8 OF 8 QUESTIONS CORRECT Rating: Safety Guru
You laugh in the face of spyware and adware. Your practically clairvoyant knowledge of the Web allows you to distinguish between safe sites and those that pose potential danger. (We suspect that you may also know which soda machines might steal your money before you drop a quarter.) Our hats off to you.
Now we step into the propaganda:
Remember that even one misstep can put your PC at risk, so SiteAdvisor's free software can help you always stay safe and in control online.
On the right side of my "you got 8 of 8 correct" note, there was another note saying:
Even the savviest expert can use a little help sometimes.
Download the free SiteAdvisor plug-in today and be warned of spyware attacks, online scams, and sites that spam you as you search and browse the Web. Download SiteAdvisor for Firefox
Would you prefer IE or a different browser?
So basically you can't really win this quiz, even if you get everything right, you're being brainwashed that "one misstep and you're out". What this is, is one elaborate PR campaign of SiteAdvisor, and not a test in the least.
Not to suspect any bias on my side, I actually have SiteAdvisor installed on Firefox here (my default browser) for the last 5-6 months and it's not bad, but this is really low of McAffee, are they so desparate?
By the way, how I guessed the questions right (if someone cares...):
***SPOILER WARNING***
- I know eMule has no adware, I know Kazaa has adware - A nice design doesn't mean free of spyware, but often spyware sites lack a lot of relevant and meaningful information about what is offered (exception: really high grade ones, like Kazaa) - If a site offers all sorts of free downloads, like DVD burning, games, screensavers, you gotta be suspicious, a specialized site with a community section and apparently done by people who are involved in the matter being presented (rather than just list downloads) is less suspicious - If a site offers no forums, contact info, feedback etc., you gotta be suspicious - If a site tries to sell a product it's less likely they'll actually turn you off by installing adware in the trial version, but that alone can't be enough, so look for a community section with forums etc.
YOU GOT 8 OF 8 QUESTIONS CORRECT Rating: Safety Guru
You laugh in the face of spyware and adware. Your practically clairvoyant knowledge of the Web allows you to distinguish between safe sites and those that pose potential danger. (We suspect that you may also know which soda machines might steal your money before you drop a quarter.) Our hats off to you.
Now we step into the propaganda:
Remember that even one misstep can put your PC at risk, so SiteAdvisor's free software can help you always stay safe and in control online.
On the right side of my "you got 8 of 8 correct" note, there was another note saying:
Even the savviest expert can use a little help sometimes.
Download the free SiteAdvisor plug-in today and be warned of spyware attacks, online scams, and sites that spam you as you search and browse the Web. Download SiteAdvisor for Firefox
Would you prefer IE or a different browser?
So basically you can't really win this quiz, even if you get everything right, you're being brainwashed that "one misstep and you're out". What this is, is one elaborate PR campaign of SiteAdvisor, and not a test in the least.
Not to suspect any bias on my side, I actually have SiteAdvisor installed on Firefox here (my default browser) for the last 5-6 months and it's not bad, but this is really low of McAffee, are they so desparate?
By the way, how I guessed the questions right (if someone cares...):
***SPOILER WARNING***
- I know eMule has no adware, I know Kazaa has adware - A nice design doesn't mean free of spyware, but often spyware sites lack a lot of relevant and meaningful information about what is offered (exception: really high grade ones, like Kazaa) - If a site offers all sorts of free downloads, like DVD burning, games, screensavers, you gotta be suspicious, a specialized site with a community section and apparently done by people who are involved in the matter being presented (rather than just list downloads) is less suspicious - If a site offers no forums, contact info, feedback etc., you gotta be suspicious - If a site tries to sell a product it's less likely they'll actually turn you off by installing adware in the trial version, but that alone can't be enough, so look for a community section with forums etc.
The test subject is inserted earplugs which results in him being unable to hear absolutely anything.
Then he is played two videos. In one of them an actor says "fuck you" in the other one "vacuum". The test subject has to guess which is which.
In the case of wrong answer the subject can't take care of himself in the event of attack, terrorism, and we should complete the transition to a police country as fast as possible.... oh and we need to require it by law that people wear their earplugs at all times.
Slashdot Mirror
"Second, there will be a "flash rendering" component available. Start with "gnash".
You're kidding yourself, there's no open source player in existence that plays current flash content. Gnash supports a modest ubset of Flash 7. A subset means the majority of Flash 7 files won't work.
The current version is 8, which is vastly improved, and in 3 months 9 will be out, which a rewritten VM.
Gnash or any other effort can never catch up.
It's sometimes easy to forget that the internets is a global community.
I live in Bulgaria, where the prices are:
Wiiiiiiiii!
That's of course totally bizarre, but from Japanese folks you can only expect totally bizarre and nothing less.
I makes an impression as if they wanted to sound like Viiv? That brand from Intel for home entertainment device? That means nothing and fell flat last time?
Let's hope Nintendo Wii is better.. Huhu.. god damn it I can't write it, read it or say it without chucking.
do not venture far from the web browser
Explain that to the said computer users: no movie sites, no game sites, no interactive sites, no web games.
Why? Because there's no Flash for this CPU architecture and there won't be. You can bet computer users care about that.
I've two of them here, and full of them all over the world: Celeron 500Mhz (second hand, apparently), floppy 15 GB Disk, 128 RAM, 100MBps LAN, USB and so on, OEM XP Home.
For total of $80, I can throw in a 15 inch CRT, keyboard mouse and speakers.
So what, does that make me a "yet another ambitious cheap computer" project initiator or I just have more common sense that the rest of the world.
Why is everybody afraid of second hand electronics?
I hate to break it to you
Why, are you afraid I may go mentally unstable and throw myself from a bridge?
but Word and Excel are no longer the primary tasks people use computers for. Web browsing and email are.
I don't need a computer that looks like a brick for that, for the price of this computer (when you add the monitor, kb and so on) you can get a PDA with a large screen, browsing and e-mail capabilities.
Municator? Did they mean communicator but were too cheap to hire a translator?
Apart from the cheap jokes, I wonder if that cheap PC will still be cheap if we tag on the cheap monitor, cheap keyboard, mouse, and of course a pair of cheap stereo speakers on it.
Don't blame Apple about Windows being a piece of crap.
Call Microsoft and complain. Not that it will do any good, but it might make you feel better.
You're really smart, you have to start your own software company.
here's a demo of the product.
Oh, good, good. Now that we know it's not x86 compatible or Windows compatible so the majority of ordinary people can't do anything useful on it, like run Word or Excel, it also doesn't look like a computer.
It looks like a huge cellphone battery. Except you don't have that big of a cellphone to fit it in.
another ambitious 'inexpensive computer' project
You know, purely based on context, the meaning of the word "ambitious" starts shifting to a new meaning of "brave but clueless".
Why would I need a computer based on non-Intel chip for? Is there any software for it? The article says we'll do it to say no to WinTel. I need to buy a $150 worthless piece of hardware to say no to WinTel.
Are they targeting kindergardeners or something?
That's like selling cheap Internet that's however not Internet so you can't connect to any site or anything.
They claim their chip performs like P3, that kinda doesn't matter since what will I benchmark it with. Photoshop? 3DSMax? AutoCAD? Ah no, none of them will run on an exotic 64-bit chip under Linux.
They run on a WinTel...
Did anyone notice the article summary has no connection with the title whatsoever...?
Not sure if banks are willing to donate code, but here's my new open source project:
10 HOME
20 PRINT "I LOVE BANKS!"
30 GOTO 20
If that's useful to someone's ego (who works in a bank) and willing to contribute in cash, call me.
Thanks for your attention.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but it seems to me that it's rather easy to just toss out an "iTunes is crap" type comment with no explanation at all.
That's because if you ever used it on Windows, explanation is not needed.
But the explanation is that in terms of startup times, RAM, CPU, speed and responsiveness, it's on par with 3DSMax or Photoshop, except those are big heavy professional apps with lots of components, and iTuned/QT are just a damn media player (with a library and a browser pane, in the case of iTunes).
Their interfaces look totally out of place and make no sense in a Windows environment. The way to lure Windows users to OSX is not by totally disrespecting the UI rules of application design of Windows.
And QuickTime crashes way too much for me to respect it. I tremble in fear that Firefox is going down every time I see a quicktime movie load in a web page (and it happens roughly 1 in 4 times).
"I wouldn't be so quick to blame the developers of Apple's Windows applications. Remember, they're basically stuck working with the existing Windows APIs (Win32, MFC), and PowerPlant."
Good, this explains how Windows Media Player 10 is a lot faster, lighter and stable than Quick Time on Windows... Oh wait it doesn't.
Your argument was totally off. I'm primarily a Windows user. I don't complain that all Windows apps are inferior, I complain specifically of the QT/iTunes ports being inferior compared to other apps with their functionality.
"... isn't it? Although I use a Mac Mini most of the time, my work PC with Windows 2000 makes some beautiful music with the latest version of iTunes. What's so bad about it?"
Installs services that take up RAM and CPU even if an iPod isn't attached? Is terribly slow to resize compared to a normal XP application? Is taking too much RAM and CPU for what it is?
Also iTuned doesn't "make some beautiful music", it just plays it, but I guess Steve had you people convinved otherwise. There's some magical filter in it that makes music the best in the universe, doesn't it?
"I remember installing QuickTime and some of the preferences are a wee bit clunky, but no more so than **chuckle** Windows Media Player **shudder**."
It takes ages to start, has horrible interface (slightly improved in version 9 but still very odd) for a Windows application, crashes way too much in Firefox (brings the whole Firefox down one time of 4 when there's a QT movie: crashes in the QT dll), crashes one time out of four when I click a high definition trailer link on apple.com?
It's very slow to go in and out of full screen mode and sometimes displays odd interpolation artifacts (seen neither in WMP or other media players)?
What more reasons can I have to not like it?
an entirely new engineering team could salvage the software and bring it up to Apple's usual standards.
For a reference, the "Apple's usual standards for software" are "the best application in the Universe" (tm), that's tought to achieve.
They might as well fire all of their Windows ports division as well, QuickTime/iTunes on Windows is a piece of cr*p.
I did the quiz with 8 of 8 the first time:
YOU GOT 8 OF 8 QUESTIONS CORRECT
Rating: Safety Guru
You laugh in the face of spyware and adware. Your practically clairvoyant knowledge of the Web allows you to distinguish between safe sites and those that pose potential danger. (We suspect that you may also know which soda machines might steal your money before you drop a quarter.) Our hats off to you.
Now we step into the propaganda:
Remember that even one misstep can put your PC at risk, so SiteAdvisor's free software can help you always stay safe and in control online.
On the right side of my "you got 8 of 8 correct" note, there was another note saying:
Even the savviest expert can use a little help sometimes.
Download the free SiteAdvisor plug-in today and be warned of spyware attacks, online scams, and sites that spam you as you search and browse the Web.
Download SiteAdvisor for Firefox
Would you prefer IE or a different browser?
So basically you can't really win this quiz, even if you get everything right, you're being brainwashed that "one misstep and you're out". What this is, is one elaborate PR campaign of SiteAdvisor, and not a test in the least.
Not to suspect any bias on my side, I actually have SiteAdvisor installed on Firefox here (my default browser) for the last 5-6 months and it's not bad, but this is really low of McAffee, are they so desparate?
By the way, how I guessed the questions right (if someone cares...):
***SPOILER WARNING***
- I know eMule has no adware, I know Kazaa has adware
- A nice design doesn't mean free of spyware, but often spyware sites lack a lot of relevant and meaningful information about what is offered (exception: really high grade ones, like Kazaa)
- If a site offers all sorts of free downloads, like DVD burning, games, screensavers, you gotta be suspicious, a specialized site with a community section and apparently done by people who are involved in the matter being presented (rather than just list downloads) is less suspicious
- If a site offers no forums, contact info, feedback etc., you gotta be suspicious
- If a site tries to sell a product it's less likely they'll actually turn you off by installing adware in the trial version, but that alone can't be enough, so look for a community section with forums etc.
Sorry replied to a wrong article, I'm recovering from a shock therapy.
I did the quiz with 8 of 8 the first time:
YOU GOT 8 OF 8 QUESTIONS CORRECT
Rating: Safety Guru
You laugh in the face of spyware and adware. Your practically clairvoyant knowledge of the Web allows you to distinguish between safe sites and those that pose potential danger. (We suspect that you may also know which soda machines might steal your money before you drop a quarter.) Our hats off to you.
Now we step into the propaganda:
Remember that even one misstep can put your PC at risk, so SiteAdvisor's free software can help you always stay safe and in control online.
On the right side of my "you got 8 of 8 correct" note, there was another note saying:
Even the savviest expert can use a little help sometimes.
Download the free SiteAdvisor plug-in today and be warned of spyware attacks, online scams, and sites that spam you as you search and browse the Web.
Download SiteAdvisor for Firefox
Would you prefer IE or a different browser?
So basically you can't really win this quiz, even if you get everything right, you're being brainwashed that "one misstep and you're out". What this is, is one elaborate PR campaign of SiteAdvisor, and not a test in the least.
Not to suspect any bias on my side, I actually have SiteAdvisor installed on Firefox here (my default browser) for the last 5-6 months and it's not bad, but this is really low of McAffee, are they so desparate?
By the way, how I guessed the questions right (if someone cares...):
***SPOILER WARNING***
- I know eMule has no adware, I know Kazaa has adware
- A nice design doesn't mean free of spyware, but often spyware sites lack a lot of relevant and meaningful information about what is offered (exception: really high grade ones, like Kazaa)
- If a site offers all sorts of free downloads, like DVD burning, games, screensavers, you gotta be suspicious, a specialized site with a community section and apparently done by people who are involved in the matter being presented (rather than just list downloads) is less suspicious
- If a site offers no forums, contact info, feedback etc., you gotta be suspicious
- If a site tries to sell a product it's less likely they'll actually turn you off by installing adware in the trial version, but that alone can't be enough, so look for a community section with forums etc.
The test subject is inserted earplugs which results in him being unable to hear absolutely anything.
... oh and we need to require it by law that people wear their earplugs at all times.
Then he is played two videos. In one of them an actor says "fuck you" in the other one "vacuum". The test subject has to guess which is which.
In the case of wrong answer the subject can't take care of himself in the event of attack, terrorism, and we should complete the transition to a police country as fast as possible.
Thank you Microsoft, you've been a great friend!
- The Linux community
How do you put a sphy.... uhmmm sphygnomo.. mona.. uhmm (google, copy, paste) Sphygmomanometer on a CPU anyways?
1. We present you with a 32x32 pixel cropped screenshot from two sites. One of those contains dangerous spyware! Which one is it!
*click*
Ahahah, it's both you loser!
Now go buy our software.
2. Next question: what you see is 32 bytes from two EXE files. Which one of those installs adware?...
At least it's better then Apple's Firewall [apple.com] (turned off by default, PITA to block outbound traffic).
Doesn't matter since Apple laughs in the face of malware. Turning a firewall on would mean it expects fire.